Skip to main content

Full text of "Smithsonian miscellaneous collections"

See other formats

3 Nkte 
7 4 RH a ts Rut e 
ey Sa 
e OK a) 
, Uae 
ae 8 
. Ne HW 
: i. ae Bec i aN 8 
Beam as NYAS Rie 
SETIEE ko BNC ae! 
BEES YS ey ; SEG a 
‘ ‘ an] ‘ uf 2 oe } a fi 5 
TEE Ran R16 PCR NEM ea 
SOLER chk Pee ee oh 
TE TE SRN Ranier BS ae pat 
PARANA HRMS at me ee 
ik RE NRA Bernas ENGR bis 
i mer, ge by ERD RR Reis ABE , 
s MERE ore eans Rs : BS ASS 
; Bistro a aN Wie Pere on AS AN 
are Cra ins 5} SSR rt nr a 
ef Betts y shy Pi RataNe 
Ge? Pees th ut BCR tah 
a : RO) 
2 BRGY Aho Ps Ans. 
ee UG 
Pee Shh OCU a ; 
n oe ee m4 REPROD GYAN 
rhe ies Be aay Ee ‘ 
Weds RGSS i 
tA ANG sy? a0 b ya 
“4 ~ TR nee 
a pies 
ROPSO v6 mabe a 
eae eC s 
Ree ERAN 4 ea; * uh 
i Meee Ae POEy 
a Wy AS 
aoe F a 5 
Oey | 

Naas s 



Bie Las 


alba e ae aN 

baltalec St 




“ eae 
Pa oS 



} f 






The Lord Baltimore Press 


o- —e  ee e - 

i a 


The present series, entitled “ Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collec- 
tions,” is intended to embrace all the octavo publications of the 
Institution, except the Annual Report. Its scope is not limited, 
and the volumes thus far issued relate to nearly every branch of 
science. Among these various subjects zoology, bibliography, geology, 
mineralogy, anthropology, and astrophysics have predominated. 

The Institution also publishes a quarto series entitled “ Smith- 
sonian Contributions to Knowledge.” It consists of memoirs based 
on extended original investigations, which have resulted in important 
additions to knowledge. 

Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution. 


47 itil y “f 
a - roth 
seh! a 

an na a 



Herpiiéxa, ALES. The skeletal remains of early man. July 24, 1930. 
379 pp., 93 pls., 39 figs. (Publ. 3033.) (Whole volume. ) 


, L i Pvde - 
Me ty | 
Ramee pine rear wen 


; a TLL ; ? 





JULY 24, 1930 

The Lord Battimore Mress 



In 1914 the writer published a small treatise on “ The Most Ancient 
Skeletal Remains of Man.”* The object of the publication was to 
furnish reliable data, including as far as possible original observations 
and measurements, on the older and more valuable skeletal remains 
of man. The scope of the presentation was limited to the remains of 
human forms that differed substantially from those of the later pre- 
historic time and those of the present. The demand was such that 
the edition was soon distributed, and in 1916 the Smithsonian Institu- 
tion reprinted the treatise in nearly the original form. This second 
edition also was soon exhausted. 

Since 1916 a number of important new discoveries have been made ; 
moreover, the writer, in the course of several additional trips to 
Europe, has examined personally, and in some cases repeatedly, the 
originals of both the older and the more recent discoveries. Also, 
notwithstanding the fact that many valuable contributions on the sub- 
ject have appeared in print within the last decade, there is still to date 
no publication which deals with the ancient skeletal remains of man 
in any manner approaching completeness. In view of all this, and 
because of the many requests received for such a publication, it was 
felt that the preparation of a new and larger work should be under- 
taken; and the present volume is the result. 

The principal aim of this book is to furnish accurate and, as far as 
possible, complete information on the earlier skeletal remains of man. 
If this object can be achieved, or even closely approached, then the 
publication should be one of permanent reference value, and further 
light on the problems involved, including further discoveries, may be 
dealt with in addenda. 

* Ann. Rep. Smithsonian Inst. for 1913, pp. 491-552, 41 pls., 12 figs., 1914. 



ESTA COMME TROT esr re ete ce eres rere Tere oe IIe a Poise Sieh Saat See TING anes erat III 
Ti ERO CEO MM yee ee Ree ere en pre deneepebies Bgl diBk 55 Me ala ae pret tetael Fa I 
shemolacialepentodimmmn rears er oes cereals oie tececpeeacie Pat StS cE IR Wal spot tae 4 
Cultural subdivisions of the period of early man and their approximate 

COGelationnwithscolopienconditionsemeneccomere dees occa tcion cede: II 
Mhesancrentuskeletalunemainstohimanl. accession o tease n co eome acetic os 22 
PRE rtlcatayantriaati iar renser cis rere: eters rete cake rche ee eave si anu T Oc olor SIa ea Shales PaO Soa 22 
Seb) awao Lull Oxchiall Were OMe epee aad we ean sheet Sas at pices viawaras ene y= 2 
The oldest well-authenticated skeletal remains of man and of related forms.. 28 
em bathecamthropiusnest. caterers ne erode Cheer Che eh espera ee eln ee 28 
chhesiinsteiind cam bhemlLowetalawieeaccnioetcrecr ee acerca oterreciacnion 32 
pihrestincd seatupl acini lees rey eye stots eet catia vais ioc roxt cuter cuore canoes 35 
TBRS:-SHWASIE KHGLOL A pth, Gas Hels Ea eae GER area On ERE IA EROS OCR IPA Gee oemrtnpee Be 35 
MNES kaa Canemrrarvene ore cies cereals crops ses ieestoteyeacterecey eiceae ele otaaieve bie Cosies 35 
PME ELEM tent este ae esetoleke eee ees lorena Meet meusic ieee 30 
Mhneesecond tooth ste. <c csai tec ysiors ic oaks es castes lovee cee ose eceucte sie nlecs = 37 
MIDE ME lis tOO Elam eescet cio etoet eter ais wNeoe Ro cre nrolos a crtaresle ta tetas ena daserete 37 
WaAternrexcavallonsmanas IStUdlesm seme cocmiae eciciici seine Sele te 37 
The opinions of Dubois and others regarding the remains......... 38 
Subsequentehistonyaecctterrttyuccere cites. ore ele icrer ste aera oreltecene orarars aloes onset 44 
Dr. Dubois’ latest publications on the remains...............--.- 46 
State of preservation and age of the remains................ 46 
sihneyslaillcapy wacietemshastras ols. Chis sisig’s aoe eas ste Se sued Sa eee habs 47 
LD Ey oval TeeuT Pees ey sieve eect reread votes eer BES cathe olerrers eo tase ve) oe 48 
PING Mt ee Cinbe te nay esc e Siete Sic cheat ea ete ese Ce Sear wae es Nai a 48 
SURE MSR SEAT cop et es cose eet ede cee a aaa ocr ease balou ts rake fouteeh ome cat ls 49 
WAAL IES TANCIOL ES wea aye Bio retete cle olor cect eeeS Geta ie crate On Ae nc einIe GEO 51 
Geolocicalsagesotthe brinilvdepositsen -ormme ree dace ee 52 
GriticaligconsiderationSresiscsac ciclo cates 6 oe RS eia oem cies 53 
sem wiitetise viSitetOmlbniniler ne treraty An sas -ete steleters es iesheuere musta a chee 57 
The latest contribution to the study of the remains............... 60 
ihhewesecondaithecanthnhopusiereci-iid-it reel etree eer: 62 
Ndditionaleliterattase: tas pion ore ole eae soars as roe ene SO 65 
Sem Oaathco mise cence casera ark sues Cae ae cs as 65 
eHewOt Pita leaty tad rayerseets fevers ere a ere rae jo ous at eee renee RrICK rae exesastolel Te 66 
Mb etaG ditrOriallataicl Sy teen pene secl otaievetece as eto eee See Pe eee teenies olen 68 
IVECApittl] atlOmerer race veter rerio le cic eteis se sen sons seee epnleponayeecumeetanmieney one cites 70 
aNnems keletallsnenrctmsie src. jai atte crsre ose asis eleven trace citer ear eereiei covet ials 71 
BIDIMe MTS EES KUTT Oper cieveh aeons jas: csc hon os natu ereas hens ise iel ere VeIOMeNE rece nche es Fil 

Elbe wattle erred ee ees te bs ee mcr en er aamen nn, RENE A eC oD 75 

MDE elo Wiel) LWA CTR eters lois Aine e oars eae cee eaehee tae siasad esate alco omnia 7 

ei rentsepratabentnO lak cye.crisy aise ieleusie: sree eters GRR iss al sieus aay 2.01 08 0.0, 87 

SIGE GCAIIILT eG apy tae tear te cscs Crass sae mite steed eee RS ahanalevey eas 87 
Mihiersecondlpslctill Peres ee tens cise erick ins Gos cuee mina seisreveneners 88 
@onehidine veriticalaremanyks: A.tsch oaklcisies ats escola s Balan oiacws 88 
INdditionalpliteratticemece ceri inte eles oak eis scr ceeeie 90 


Homo heidelber gensts dscc0 «sates hoe seis « oss aie Sheiy tae tenons 90 
The Fa 5.5.0 o xb'pcwwcad a.tarntwre aimee Rina stae lao 6 Ree aren ie ee 03 
The: teeth” sis «evan clecc oyisie beer cots whew else nlo s clams eee eee 04 
Measurements and icOMpaLriSOMNS secs acct nies n vine om ese clots cle enone 05 
Goncluding. .cemarks® <i sae sian eae ees cicelaie sTniels as ie Sree aera 98 
The Rhodesiah man’ 6.8 21 hes ae eee cts en ee eee 08 
Circumstances: of the find: 22). oi. cen telecine cc seis oer eee 99 
The: writer’s/investivationsvin" 1025: sence ties ie tree 103 
Additional material) 0%-.5.425. ones cn cee etnies eee ered teins tee III 
Gritical’ wemarks: <4 Fi ceadoce tee te er ee eee ere 115 
The British Museum report on the Rhodesian remains........... 116 
THe skullh Boos ceceintess civ ice cena MAUR Ee RE OeRe he ee nae 117 
The’ brain. .'e Sos ivtodses occa shveen thee aetna loca r st areeaetieaers 119 
Pathological teatures\/o1 the Skull@---e.n cere eee cies 121 
The:'teeth 4.0 irievis cic seagate acre tele tance ee ete etch ietere eee eee vaeae 121 
The ‘stone’ implements) /-is 32.0 eenicetretietee ita tios eee 121 
Phe ‘fawn «7 Ms fs oka S oth twins, eerste ante ale oe eke tore neers 122 
Description of the skulltand tibiay... 22 -eiaeee ee teee  ee 123 
The "sled os sceccc watts eae cyocinee reel Perea eck ieee eee 123 
Phe TD Ia sc sso Sa o ceveiete © atone, Cie aimee temno cre Cea tenet cree et he Getta 131 
Additional’ literatire> <:cce52 é5000 ae em coe een eee 134 
Appendix I, Abstracts from onetad) reports on the Rhodesian 
CAVE (as ve ienda danced bata chile oot Roto ee tt ee ae 134 
Appendix II. The finding of the Broken Hill skull. The mystery of 
the great (bone: cave. .....cce oe eee ee eee 142 
The: Neanderthal family i...0.3 [bcctee i circ cee ee ee ee 144 
The Neanderthal skull and bones...) u25...52 oe Cee aoe eee eee 148 
The viskeadh cscs Sac cars shee ators Sevan See eeareae ie EU ee 152 
Other: parts: of ‘the. skeleton... ).5.. 3 ks ¢aceee cee ee re ee ee 155 
Concluding remarks on parts of the skeleton other than the skull.. 160 
Additional ‘literaturé* 4.2.5 5. ec. e as nee ec ene See pee *. 160 
Lhe skull of ‘Gibraltar. :%.57 350 sec soe cee cetee eerie ciate ate eae 161 
Additional explorations and finds at Gibraltar.................00. 170 
Explorations ‘by Abbé. Breuily; -'o:waresesaenecee eee cae 170 
Additional! literature hao.e ee ee ee 171 
The child ‘skull ‘of Gibraltar... 02% 3223457 o3ce22 aoe ee ee ee 171 
The skull ..3..3 eatery ulitessbek ae eee eee ee 174 
The brat: 2%. vc fase pnt cca ee nee eet ne Cee eee oe ee ee 175 
The writer's ‘notes ‘on: the Sonne neeeee eae eee 176 
‘Phe ‘Spy’ skeletons: «055% ic 2). ian wa vate she Pe oe ee ee ee 178 
Description of the: Spy: skulls and! bones:.. 7. 04u05 «535 veces teens 183 
J; Fraipont’s data sii 34.55) 2a ek eee ee ee eae 184 
Author's notes and critical remarks) .oi vase ees eeeiies oc ea aee 184 
Uhe Crania-..505< 4s do oes hoe haan ee Eee oe eee 190 
Upper jaw of ‘skull Wo. 10.0 Abc oee eee eee eee 192 
Lower jaw of skull No. Es isintais Ar se-a arm tete sa Ris at therein bo siete ReneS 
Upper jaw of skull No, 2, 55.5345 o uate eee ee eee 194 

Lower jaw of skull<suere sale a's Nieleie se sis eRe 194 


The bones of the skeletons...........0-:0s-seere reese eeetee 195 

Sele beat ING EA Te ere je co Poves nv oi-clw nl euar ce = (ore) a heute! et asnhare term) nile) © =r 195 

Sele TOM NOM See tora terele leks olsen alent ho telel orale beret vaeist sic 197 

Concluding remarks ..........2.eceee pees cere weer e nce c es cneenes 202 
The diluvial. man of Krapina........-.c202eessee ese r eet e ese escccees 202 
Archeological remains eee ee eee rece ee eens ceeees 205 
The human skeletal remains...........-.e cece eects eee eee eeeeees 205 

Detailed observations on the cranial remains..........+.+++s+eeee+ 208 

Sera ee New ela iigare tacit ate ney haiensje oles inj elms lee eyelerate ere oelerngarni 208 

Serafin eee bithehy feiese acote rac rere nya ey sy atntoh- <oslepctarepoede seine sis mietene ia) eeOS 

Skull C, young adult ..........-s:s2eceeseee recess isk aoe 209 
Sinaller trapments: = 266 es dees ae =) cle sieetosacine ees os 211 

NOU ponee aed WIS te cite oe secre mininyn mi olnratets lolee sce viotelaiahsiprasshalaleyeis 212 

EGWED JAWS treet Keseieb eabicinie sinh eames ian A oieleae eg): 213 
WMieskera piney Cecklins vies ae)-talolelsielefaiste Sele araisie ss c'eVeis) ovina elmin anid 219 
Skeletal remains other than skulls.........-..-+eeeeeee secre ee 219 
Concluding remarks about the Krapina skulls and skeletons...... 225 
PRA EOre ILGEARUICG) oa ee cteicnie oie resietnicle eiaroic ovsiesiclo Sine clei nantes ead 
The Ehringsdorf remains of early man.......--++eseeeee erste recess 22 
Sele tal GeMiAaItISe weal: weary wiere s\sl eels soba ce = ccinte is 'e ewe sin\s\ ols 2 seis 234 
TUNE NE ACLS Ho] © MIE TAN oto ie hos tee elevehe alee (or nPe megs = icles 234 

The lower jaw of the child...........0.-ceeeee estes erences 236 

‘ihe: parietal patie tte seyret. )='ero oe we ihn ee i ices 238 

Safes RG Sas beta ee ote corse ae fefela «cI P= oe flare e inicbar am ioisieymier ieee og 238 
GriLCAlsOlese ee ee re eetasieroie Piercy vetlel ie tisoee oe ccs 2390 
IAidatiorial rteciet-)ehs eis misters - aie clare ss ee orere ersre micesn cre #7 241 
Gietae malian bate ny tanned sy, Stayer ties wach areata syare eo enevermy ene are em) escunesai ni 241 
PleseranPlom ok thre CCE orca ore <7. jaye! lake rcie tio ole enw ators oe tees 242 
The Pleistocene man of Jersey (England).....-----++ssseectrcreees 244 
INI IGTIA I THLEL REVI: me citeteicielelctstolafajos~ se tfolesr a! ovelel she nim sioteres to meeseine 251 
The fossil man of La Chapelle-Aux-Saints......--.++++eseeees eae 251 
AUT ORS Fetal Wee RAE Ts coee lose ep el cisions eye om Shera ia yao Whore ements Bett 256 
Concluding comments on the skull.......------++sserreesrs eres 201 
The hones of, the sSkeletOMm. 2... ees. ose se cis mines 263 

aS eee SEARLE Fe Ie ies oes de ere neers shes av eaw rake ope Ainias ai carsey he lesb sacs one 267 
Avel Temiaitis. Obs lal JM ERGASSIC™,c/< o.s,c/cke.a.0 5 e/-[e\ choles el) +/m! #/ereiaic]a aiepeinialeeien\ sie 267 
Descriptive notes on the La Menrassies remains se) eerie er tt 270 
SURE CEATINGAE OR aera ora ee va ee aves rete ai wale eve stokes tenes cmsbc i oyancae= 270 

he wsiceletaly pabts. sepia 2 cele sec te sie is on #1 eleieinie eran ese fel sini 271 

Griticalme marks: eo sices ee cetereicre sia asic me asninie.® oes ele lenarnee ekegsteae nacre 274 
Sifie ean @ catvacte Geman) cicle elie ae ei-i-) tala slo misinten = sync eelnimimerta ies 275 
Notes and critical remarks........-:.seees ee eeeneeseeeecece sees 282 
Observations on the skulls and jawS......-.+--sseeeeeseeereees 285 
eter tt eS kettles a ache stanelol ieseuntershe mvs. hev cia cain Cofencypinfegemveyamesieaves* 285 

The second mandible (1912) ......ce cere eect eee e etter eres 293 
Phersktll OF the CHING siescw ecco onre ve eons isc online mises nals 204 

Notes on parts of the skeleton other thatetheslctillisrepersereeiciersicrers e205 
AS OHAATICS. Fe oa iscisls Sete ie wine ors. the saiale tier epetnelelasye ain: orein aisle inte. vincs 297 


The Le Moustier ‘matt: «. << asc Scere aie ie eieiiatente mire teers 297 
The Skah] ois'ei0 cis icwces vistle we siete nccln pie Raglan catetareretetarale eet eteta 300 
The ‘skeletal, parts. acne e'-te.s opiate Were eee ee te e Miatele erie aceite eters 302 
Additional. ‘literature: © 5 sicg.ic,disjsvarv ae seats aro larsitysta etate sie ey oeeterate bat ets 303 
The ‘Galilee skill). :-cs:cis. esa evans oe io aise pele ae ereeete seins ieee easton 303 
Description: of the shally, ..<ciet «cere csn ati e eile tale tienes 306 
Concludit: remarks’. cc'b Sviaas s steer aie eo eee 309 
"The Rome ssl coh -iie'ccctatag eect see ctetpate eis eke ore teeet osteo ca Trane eee 310 
The La Naulette: jaw cys ectow.ere ays ciara dreceesie iotete Nietete ateke sete glean: fete ie et oie 310 
Additional! literature .3.. 52.03. soeeeee Cee eee ieee ae 314 
The Sipka; jaw. iscsi cca ces ced eaccdan aan eine ceeientee ete aerate 314 
The Malarnaud = {aw sci. 5 Beso e ss oa else av ee ea tea eee west wee 315 
The’ Batolas ‘jaw’. slog i esos ns bah Pee eee ee eee eee 316 
Additional literatie 1.435. seed hae eee ee eee 318 
Résumé of the physical characteristics of the Neanderthal phase of man.... 319 
Skull eaipe.< wre. 3x9 9.5) ara. dingo catereier ove Giotasin sector Oiehe a Ole Dual were ater aot Poke eret tetera 319 
Base: . isis etre cree ei ahe ole oe-e a oa related chotalote wate veto rs leave oer ovate oie iek atone ate 320 
RACE: ie cores orc ew eo ae SB Sn nips Gs Ok inten ants oes 0 Ola eae ete Cees ieee 320 
Teeth aie sis o/.00 ws ares ove, sete te we Gc ue Ore eae bererede ae ore Siete tara» tara star oot tete 321 
TOWEL FAW © oecc 5 oo ace sible aid ereiwiate Soe eels eas Ip aT ae tts ice eee 321 
Skeletote it nha oie ho eee eo ee ee ieee eres oreiverets 322 
Generalizations sie cis s.cinistece's sg eeneueeteere ea ok ie eI OE eo eee 322 
Critical considerations of the Neanderthal problem...................... 326 
Neanderthal man? jised.25.0 am caer eee ao ae ee een oe eet 328 
Definition: . 5 .ci\s2 cite cine basis oe retets bicio iecsoke ie wine ot ee eer 328 
Geographical extent. fen iosecwieme san hee EO Eee een eee 328 
Limits: ‘and’: duration: icc cisncacs se ota ie RU Ecos 329 
Paleontology... 5 iss ted sinoa os netce aa eee ate eee ioe 329 
GEOL RY! is o\.5 sae cic Spe nipsORIRIEe BORE ASI ee Sic ue Loser Ee eer ere aoe 330 
AFCHEOlOR Yo. os icis cc Ae ee ola icons © © Gat lots We SIAL Rep ane eiake Goer ere 330 
Oeewtpations (osc. ccae se eae Mina ce Pcie nn ee eee ee eae 330 
Sequence of culture. «.. 22.7. case oe oar ee oe cae eateries 335 
PASEO soci Miinte scsi bo Sosa ah Se toun Sha tenet orc a eae Tone Ce aaa Tete 337 
The: skeletal’ remaitis Osc4\c20. a omtee ce aici ee ee eee eee 339 
Recapttalation’ ....o-5)s 5 asics gos ascclm sie ears sere ake whole eke te tena reyetetbale atere etetake ete 344 
‘he teeth ‘OF Catly MAN esc, vct ccs yous ee al Meee ee ee eee eee eee 350 
Additional’ literature: °...0055..s. 5 o..cteaie aie othe ace On oe eee eee 361 
Concluding remarks 23/0322 cee a-c.ctcke s sie alersieha te seketeisie sere tae are 361 
Additional: literature: « . js. 75.056 50 cans ae ee ee ee ee aes 363 
The Sinanthropus: <2... << s5aces wine, oe eine suet etetronete laters arenas 365 
Discovery of skull of adult Sinanthropus at Chou Kou Tien..... 306 
COMmIMients : <..5.< :c:sieyave.wlsse ave ws oicherabaie CUReNe Oona a REM eR Pore stcloreranee tate 307 

Erterature 2 oc ic ccc) <n ard aie w Gini ae On ot Ee aeEe eet rote 368 



The Pithecanthropus : Pe 

late spre nite stent cyetee che cee Sere etnies caterers ain nuskovale oleh n staedelatevalerier store 62 
The Eoanthropus: 

Pate Stelmach rere rate rae ils chaveres tee a sores coos Susie aleiers te Sate ie oe telate gs tale 86 
Homo heidelbergensis (The Mauer jaw) : 4 

brit Stas Te5 weed L1G be Heya wise ones erc te chee ailedeie srs ors ie sets crear chemo ee love or taleo en cyanae 08 
The Rhodesian man: 

eS Me iSite ery ob sae CPN ESI oe re ate eS RS PST LS omar ae estes or ears toe 134 
The Neanderthal family : 

PLATESE ZO SSM creer Tey ciate aCe cen em Saha e ary teed ens fepavaei say cas aaron ait 160 
The skull of Gibraltar: 

I eatesin 37 = 36 Wares eset eerspeeee ny ee te ere Rae eee ey aya atic ton cea aS 170 
The child skull of Gibraltar : 

Fetes ae 3753 0 eae taseh ue cue v exten chet Peas pere UN esto (oF ee cake Sota Rt ee tS 178 
The Spy skeletons: 

Plates eA Os Gert etl ieee arc apher cP make ld taastonsas, iehinebel ous aC P te eke 202 
The diluvial man of Krapina: 

Tate pA GES Game cetera roe ore crs Senoee yale arent cia Gad ae Oe ea 226 
The Ehringsdorf remains of early man: 

THESIMS a5 Orne rrencesSeeate ea TNS NoM eG aia & NS ds Peles Suse SNe Sh ers Mice c ne eats 240 
The Taubach finds: 

Eat eR OO mre tater reesei oy axe arsenite eerreR ere oie et e ee, Bi otcters aircieirt noun havens stele 244 
The Pleistocene man of Jersey (England) : 

PALES HOL=OS never acce sien hove ys cre eal eravat suche ere ec Mau dian re acedeita ets cf aaa aeeetars 250 
The fossil man of La Chapelle-Aux-Saints : 

BA ateSROA OM Rennes rere ees eae ean oho tare nearer cic peter eeetat: 266 
The remains of La Ferrassie: 

el ahesee a3 teep ace acct ect sheers ay evo tava ya siete cnON ete veucetees Se otek ven enealivs 274 
The La Quina remains: 

Tepes aA ae eet tay tye dere deteae cue ts 2, 2g ore 2 ress Si cuAey ce UeRE el at aR eu ot 206 
The Le Moustier man: 

Plates Svan Oars acacia ets crac icacisya cays OGision Seat eee eat en ee 302 
The Galilee skull: 

lAteSRSO=8 2a trac ya- Setneysveics ected pee Seung Me ete EE Lea oie 310 
The Naulette jaw, the Sipka jaw, the Malarnaud jaw, and the Banolas jaw: 

Platesy Sg Bree coca eke oe EC IRAE GDA WI Sexe) 314 
Résumé of the physical characteristics of the Neanderthal phase of man: 

ETE SHOG= OOM patches escrorerenas isclsrare rere per ehere cr tieretare eiictersrartiomlainuei tei ataverierare 342 
The Sinanthropus: 

Eplatteci ONO 3 meer ceereterat cree ney rere ors or Peover Brecher ook eis eros k eo a oe ee ole uele 368 








2 . 









Diagrammatic section of earth’s crust.........eeeeeee eee eee e renee 5 
Chart of the ice age showing faunal relations to man in Central and 

Western Europe: iv' fsdsucomcyeers oe Ptah $s Set eRe ita ee 8 
Chart* the ice age atid. mati. oii sit sas sls mn eneles siete o's ies\aleimie oistemln nasi 9 
Chart: the ice age and its relations to man.........- se eee eee eee ee eeee 10 
Foxhall jaw 5 sos00s ccaesite be coe soles cle ears one ute oe ee Baie 27 
Central part of Java, showing the Solo (Bengawan) River and the site 

of the: Pithecanthropus: 42 cion eee siete ciak pasteles ane, cree 30 

Ossiferous strata in which the Pithecanthropus bones were discovered.. 31 
Profile drawing of the brain cast taken from the reconstruction of the 

Pilidown skull. by Arthur Keith. 022.5 SoS es Gee sins ed eee 75 
Eoanthropus dawsoni Smith Woodward........+..eeeee sees eeeeeee 77 
Rhodesian man: endocranial cast, top view...:-<..-+0-.<-sceesren-= 119 
Rhodesian man: endocranial cast, side view.........+-.eseeeeeeees i ESD 
Rhodesian man: endocranial cast, occipital portion..............-+-++ 120 
A sketch of the “ Naturschutzgebiet Neandertal,” the vicinity of the 

Neanderthal’ fiid’ =a). 222 eacec ons eee los siete teeters tet ete 149 
Section of the Neanderthal Cave near Diisseldorf.............-.+---- 150 

<. The Rock of Gibraltar: Sites of both Forbes Quarry (skeleton, 1848) 
"and Devil’s Tower (skeleton of child, 1926)..........++-2c.0005 163 
Profile drawing of the brain cast of the Gibraltar skull.............. 166 
The Mousterian site at Gibraltar that gave the child’s skull.......... 172 
The terrace in front of the Spy Cave: . J: ....02deese see ee eee 180 
A schematic view, in transverse section, of the Krapina hollow........ 203 
Outline: of Krapma skulls ‘C and Di acco; site Sarre ee tee vee ete 226 
The:molarcoh Catibachta. cv 20 sccctewe ae ciiereierioie cis Sieeede ete rele eee arenes 243 
The interior of: the ba Chapelle caver. <2 =. 2. mtorr cree rete erent 252 
The: La Chapelle: cave, three views)... ocr.’ «> dee eee 254 
The La Chapelle skull compared with other Neanderthal skulls........ 257 
Upper and lower dental arches of the La Chapelle skull............ 250 
Scapulae of Neanderthal and La Ferrassie compared.............+-- 273 
Sagittal contours of La Quina skull compared with other Neanderthal 

SDETAD ES sre acai wes sc oe See mls Po Sra ef aoe etre ea 286 
Endocranial cast:of La Ouina skulle sienna. on ee eeeceiceeeee eae 280 
Endocranial cast of the La Quina skull, side view......... Ser siapare wane ae 290 
The Le Moustier rock-shelter, and the position of the human skeleton.. 208 
The lett fentur of the: Le Motstier youths... asec eee sete 300 
The ‘Galilee “Cave faci can bac Stine cna tiene ie eee ROE eect 304 
The La Naulette (Cave rand its depositsy.. sc serene tere | eee cure 311 
Map of ‘Batiolas: and’ vicinity...<.. acm ets union emcee eterna 316 
Neanderthal “hamert“<i56'<tc.cre a esse o)< mies to ctoees oes eto an a mr rane 32 
Neanderthal radii: and scompanisonS:. «20h os eee iar ee 324 
Neanderthal femora compared with femur of modern Frenchman...... 325 
Chart: Dweiling-sites during paleolithic times................-..-00+ 332 

Various conceptions as to the phylogenetic relation of the Neanderthal 
withieather and later tnatls.o.c... sinc eee rice eres settee ieee 349 


(WirTH 93 PLATES) 


The chief object of anthropology is a full knowledge of man—a 
knowledge of what man is from every point of view; why, when, and 
how he came to be; how he is progressing; and what the promise of 
the future is for him. Only with such knowledge can anthropology 
be of the greatest service to mankind. To understand man of the 
present and to aid in guiding his future it is first necessary to know 
his past ; and this past goes back far beyond the time of written records. 
But a record there is, preserved in the great book of Nature. As en- 
vironment impressed itself upon man, so also man impressed himself 
upon his environment. Wherever man was, he left traces of his 
activities and of himself, and many of the more material of these traces 
remain today in the deposits of the old sites and caves where man 
had dwelt. 

These records of earlier men are of several classes. From the very 
oldest times there are artifacts of stone, the bones and teeth of the 
animals on which man lived, and, rarely, the skeletal remains of man 
himself. From early time also there appear shaped tusks and bones. 
Later there is the development of primitive art in bone or ivory, on 
stone, in clay, and on the walls of the caves; and eventually there 
appear the polishing of stone and primitive pottery. Doubtless large 
quantities of the more perishable articles of wood, skins, etc., together 
with many of the less resistant bones, have disappeared. 

For almost a century an ever more careful and intense search for 
these old remains of man has proceeded. Men are seeking or watching 
for such remains in all parts of the world. And where remains are 
found, students often devote years of most painstaking labor in bring- 
ing to light what the deposits contain. Collectively a vast amount of 
work has thus already been accomplished; though it may be only a 
small percentage of what remains. The material results of this work 
already fill or enrich many museums, and the written records and 
studies would constitute a large library. 




From ali this work and study a number of major facts have become 
established. The first relates to time. It is of peculiar interest that 
probably all the remains that can safely be attributed to man belong to 
the Quaternary period or Ice Age. There are remains, especially those 
in southeast England, that have been assigned to an even older time— 
the late Tertiary; but uncertainties still exist concerning both the 
nature and the dating of these objects, and even though these un- 
certainties should be cleared up, there would still be the legitimate 
question as to whether the beings of that very remote time were fully 

The second major fact concerns the geographic dispersion of these 
ancient human remains. Leaving out of consideration north Africa 
and southwestern Asia, which as yet present many uncertainties, the 
remains show an area of greatest intensity in western Europe, extend- 
ing gradually as time advances over larger portions of the Old World. 

The third major generalization relates to the nature of the remains. 
Whether these are artifacts or the skeletal parts of man himself, the 
earliest are seen to be scarce and primitive, the later ones showing 
a gradual and highly interesting progression in quantity, quality, and 
breadth of dispersion, until they merge into the protohistoric and then 
the historic. But the advance in culture, and perhaps even in the 
physical differentiation of man, appears to have been realized in suc- 
cessive stages rather than in a uniform progression. The main cultural 
stages of prehistoric man are now fairly well known in substance, 
though further studies indicate that matters are probably more complex 
than they have appeared and that in the not far distant future it may 
be necessary to revise our present views. There have evidently been 
irregularities and transitional stages, as well as topographical and 
chronological complications. 

Nevertheless the present classification of the cultural remains of 
the early man of Europe is useful in subdividing man's past and 
thereby facilitating our comprehension of it. On the other hand, 
however, it tends to establish in the minds of the students sharp limits 
where no such limits have existed in reality; also it leads them to 
consider the subdivisions as general chronological criteria, whereas 
no such use is justified. 

As to the paleontological remains associated with those of early 
man, they have been exceedingly useful in the dating of the human 
cultural and skeletal material. But here also matters are far from 
simple. The Quaternary fauna is seen to have been rich, the appear- 
ance, duration, and extinction of individual species very uneven, and 
their geographical distribution irregular. As a result of all this the 


problem of the chronological identification of human remains by 
means of the remains of the extinct animal forms has become, in 
many cases, a matter for highly expert knowledge and most careful 
consideration. One of the most common and serious errors in this 
connection is to regard the skeletal remains of man in the same light 
as his cultural objects. The animal remains have frequently a decisive 
voice in the dating of a deposit. They are of similar value in dating 
the cultural remains of man, except those that may have been buried 
with a body. But their value becomes very uncertain when they are 
called upon to date the bones of man himself, for the reason that, 
since later Neanderthal times at least, man has interred his dead, 
burying the bodies from two to four feet, or even deeper, in the 
ground. In this manner human bones in many cases may have been 
brought artificially into contact with older deposits and into associa- 
tion with older remains of animals. This important factor, simple as 
it is, is commonly forgotten by both the paleontologist and the pre- 

So far as the skeletal remains of early man are concerned, science 
is now rich beyond the most sanguine expectations of the earlier 
students of ancient man, and the material is of very great scientific 
value. But there are still many important gaps; there are many 
secondary and yet important problems to be solved; and there are 
numerous uncertainties about some of the individual remains; all of 
which intensifies greatly the need of more discoveries of skeletal 
material, particularly from the earlier periods of man’s existence. 

The present volume will be devoted essentially to the object of 
giving the original accounts and the most reliable information in 
general, on the skeletal remains of early man. These are without 
question the most important objects for the student of man’s 

In every case to be dealt with, the remains have been seen personally 
and repeatedly by the author. Original measurements were taken by 
modern and well-tested instruments, and the site of their discovery 
was in each case visited and examined. A number of these precious 
remains, as well as the sites from which they came, were reexamined 
by the author as late as the autumn of 1927. 

The accounts to be given are intended to be fairly impersonal. 
There will be no theory to defend, no side to be taken in any con- 
troversy, though there may be suggestions where justified by the 
general acquaintance with the field and perhaps by the better per- 
spective of one who is not involved in any individual finds or opinions. 

In connection with his visits and studies the author has become 
greatly indebted to a large number of eminent friends, to whom a 


grateful acknowledgment is hereby tendered. They include especially 
Sir Arthur Keith, Sir A. Smith Woodward, and the gentlemen of 
the Department of Geology and Palaeontology, British Museum 
of Natural History, London; Professors Arthur Thomson and 
J. Dudley Buxton, of Oxford; Professor R. R. Marett, of Cambridge, 
England; M. Sinel, of the Museum of the Island of Jersey; Profes- 
sors A. Rutot, Charles Fraipont and Maxime Lohest, with the sons of 
the latter, and those in charge of the Musée du Cinquantinnaire, 
in Brussels, Belgium; Professor Marcellin Boule and Dr. Henri 
Martin, Paris, with Professors Arcelin and Mayet, of Lyon, France; 
the authorities of the Museums at Périgueux, at Toulouse, at Monte 
Carlo, and at Barma Grande; those of the National and Anthropologi- 
cal Museums at Madrid; Professors Schwalbe, Lehner, Schoetensack, 
G. Steinman and J. Sobotta, Preparator H. Lindig (Weimar), and 
the authorities of the Museunts in Heidelberg, Bonn, Tubingen, 
Stuttgart, Weimar, Jéna, and Berlin, in Germany; Professors J. 
Matiegka, Karel MaSka, and Karel Absolon, in Prague, Telc, and 
Brno, Czechoslovakia; Professor K. Gorjanovi¢-Kramberger, in 
Zagreb; Professor Joseph Szombathy, in Vienna; and many others 
who cannot be mentioned here by name. 


The Ice Age, or Pleistocene period of the Quaternary, was accord- 
ing to all evidence the period most intimately associated with the early 
history of man, possibly even witnessing his origin and determining 
his development. It is the geological subdivision of time immediately 
preceding the present, from which it is not sharply separated. The 
present may be viewed in fact as still a part of the era of deglaciation, 
for the ice has merely receded to the farther north and south and 
higher up the mountains; vast parts of the earth are still perpetually 
frozen or covered by glaciers. The only justifications for separating 
the present as a period of its own lie in the seeming relative stabili- 
zation of conditions, and in the general convenience of such a separa- 
tion; but there is no line of demarcation between the two, just as 
doubtless there was none between the Glacial Age and that which 
preceded it. 

To facilitate proper orientation it may be useful to show here the 
conventional geologic subdivision of the earth’s history, though it is 
both very imperfect and largely artificial. The accompanying chart 
has been prepared by Dr. R. S. Bassler, Head Curator of the Depart- 
ment of Geology, U. S. National Museum, who has kindly permitted 
use of it. 







‘q Alluvial deposits in rivers, etc. 
Age of man 

Quaternary-Pleistocene Shale, sand, and gravel 

Pliocene 5.00 feet clay, shale, gravel, and sandstone 

(Modern life) 

Age of mammals and modern plants 

14,000 feet shales, sandstones, and lime- 

Miocene Stone 
ary 6,000 feet shales, sandstone, and lime- 

Oligocene [E= Stans 

Eocene 8,000 feet limestone, sandstone, and coal 

20,000 feet sandstone, shale, limestone, 

Upper Cretaceous & and coal beds 

(Medieval life) 

Age of reptiles 

Lower Cretaceous 20,000 feet limestone, shale, and sandstone 

Jurassic 10,000 feet sandstone and shale 

Triassic 15,000 feet sandstone, shale, and coal beds 

Permian 7,000 feet sandstone and shale 

Pennsylvanian 10,000 fect sandstone, shalo, and coal beds 

(Waverlian and 

4,500 feet shale and limestone 

Devonian 12,000 feet limestone, sandstone, and shale 

Silurian 6,000 feet sandstone, shale, and limestone 

(Ancient life) 
Age of higher invertebrate animals 

Ordovician 6,090 feet sandstone, limestone, and shale 

Canadian 4,000 feet limestone and shale 

Ozarkian 6,500 feet massive limestone 


Catcinan e000 feet quartzite, sandstone, shale, 


——_—_——————— SSeS 

30,000 fect conglomerate and sandstone 

Keweenawan with lava flows 

(Primitivo life) 
Age of primitive plants (alge) and 
invertebrate animals 

Animikian 14,000 feet banded slates and cherts with iron ore 

a i tes, tzite, and lime- 
Huronian 0,0 00;teekxlactat conglomerates, quartzi i 


20,000 feet of white quartzite 

——————  eeSeeSeSesesSesesesSseses 



saitetcs Keewatin 100,000 feet sedimentary schist and gneis3 
(Primal life) ; with lava flows; slates, conglomerates, 
Age of unicellular life Grenville and limestone 

——_——_— eee 

PRIMITIVE CRUST Igneous rocks Granite and other igneous rocks 



The length of time represented by such life on the earth as has 
left distinguishable traces, or from the Archeozoic era to the present, 
is enormous, comprising perhaps more than one hundred million 
years, though all estimates of geological time in years are notoriously 
uncertain. The greater part of this time, however, has only a secon- 
dary importance to man, the period of direct concern to him beginning 
only during the Tertiary period of the Cenozoic era. During the early 
part of this, in the Eocene or “dawn” period, there appear in 
America and elsewhere the earliest known members‘of the order of 
primates, the parent-order of Man. In the Miocene there are already 
numerous monkeys and later even some anthropoid apes. The Plio- 
cene is the age of the higher apes and from among these, during 
the latter part of this period, there begin, in all probability, further 
differentiations that lead to forms which could only be classified as 
human precursors. Then finally comes the Ice Age, and from the 
earlier parts of this, if not even before, there commence to be found 
indications of beings still higher in the scale, beings that have begun 
to shape tools of stone and other materials ; and these beings, though 
still very primitive in every way, can no more be conceived as pre- 
cursors—they are evidently representatives of the earliest men. Such, 
in brief, is the prevalent view of the appearance of man on the earth. 
From that point on, the evidence relating to him grows steadily in 
mass. It shows his slowly progressive cultural and physical advance 
with no general interruption until he connects with man of proto- 
history and then history. 

The peculiarly important relation of the Ice Age to man’s existence 
and differentiation makes it highly desirable that we have the fullest 
possible knowledge of this period. For such knowledge the student 
of man must look to geology and paleontology, and these, regrettably, 
are not yet in a position to furnish all that is needed, owing to the 
great complexities of the subject. 

There was a time in the earlier part of this century when, due 
especially to the discerning work of Penck and Brickner,’ a good 
general understanding of the Ice Age seemed to have been reached. 
The era was represented as having consisted of four glacial invasions, 
called respectively, after the Alpine localities where best represented, 

*Penck, A., and Brtickner, E., Die Alpen im Eiszeitalter, 3 vols., Leipzig, 
1901-1909; with numerous smaller, both earlier and later, contributions by these 


the Gunz, Mindel, Riss, and Wurm glaciations ; and these were be- 
lieved to have been separated by three distinct interglacial periods, 
of which the second was the longest, and followed by the postglacial 
time which merged with the present. This seemed to agree fairly 
well with the North American conditions, where five main ice exten- 
sions have been established, namely, the Nebraskan, Kansan, Illinoian, 
Iowan, and Wisconsin. 

But it gradually became apparent that matters were more complex 
and irregular. The studies of Brooks, Depéret, Boule, Mayet, Rutot, 
Steinman, Wiegers, Soergel, Schmidt, Bayer, De Geer, the Russians, 
and many others in Europe, with those of Leveret, Coleman, Osborn 
and Reed, Antevs, and many others, in America, have shed a great 
deal more light on glacial facts and problems, only to show, however, 
that the subject is not capable of any simple and universally applicable 
solution. The Ice Age is now seen to have been a vast complex of 
phenomena and changes which obeyed no simple rule and which 
varied geographically and even chronologically, as they vary to this 
day in the areas subject to glaciation. 

Paleontology and human prehistory find it particularly difficult to 
conform to a system of a quadruple extensive European glaciation 
with three major warm interglacial periods many thousands of 
years in duration. Had such alternations been general and severe, 
involving much change in climate, there ought to be, it would seem, 
perceptible corresponding changes in the general fauna and in the 
habits of man. But neither paleontological nor human mappings 
show such definite multiple marked oscillations. This has led ob- 
servers, such as Boule, Bayer, and others, including the writer, either 
to doubt the existence over the man-inhabited areas of the Quaternary 
of the four pronounced periods of cold with three warm interglacials, 
or to doubt their intensity. 

In connection with my Huxley lecture in November, 1927,’ I have 
gone with some thoroughness into these questions and constructed 
several approximate charts which are reproduced in figures 2, 3, and 4. 
They show the main conceptions of the Ice Age in western Europe, 
which was the principal territory occupied by early man, and also the 
actual difficulties of reconciling the paleontological and human evi- 
‘dence with the classic claims as to the subdivisions of the Ice Age. 
Before these charts are introduced, however, it will be useful to 
outline the general cultural classification of human prehistory. 

* Journ. Roy. Anthrop. Inst., vol. 57, pp. 249 et seq., 1927. Reprinted Smith- 
sonian Ann. Rep. for 1928, pp. 493-621, 1929. 


VOL. 83 


ewes RS SSeeers SSS seseeee S ooo 
CC Se Peal actos be feb PREECE leva saga 
ei capt ne eat Tso Tas Py TTT TT TT TT  |+209007 sinve 

ates eae WCRI LEE Ecler or 

PERE Lee Peer Reet te tt enta saga 
fate) SS ao TJ —"osvee ‘sig 

tg ees tr es ea | || a | ee ied SOR 

tte ei pata et) 477? 
EIS EE EERE peer aeaee 
TE ebee—_—fRe Se hetero ala SIEh 
pa niaves ae? oad aaana Pt tf Pee 2308 sasen 
EEE HH seep pa rrp TSE Pee eee are ere 
eatin Paetaial ge 9 by] Wo sy 
Be ep aa ee 
Praia trie e268 waren 
Slaelape Broberen esteem geese alee siaie iota embolic serbia itis 
erie eee eee Ee ee eee ae eR EEE aCe ec ee 
PESTS =e eer fe eer eeeeeeeeeemeeneeere ore CHE TE 
PEE C1 fe el CO eae ee ele ea ere eet lee er 
ial cee eae inal ater ceo ease es ee a a aaSES es | fia i] a — MHIEIW 


: Sesvsteneees itestavests “nS==EEtE == aaa FESR EERE EEE EEE ER EERE 

HE EEE EEE EEA ee See Coo eee erPeeer EEE EE 
Ae PTT TTT 4-F + $$ 4-F of 





inv “ 
YIW 77 



me |e en 
oe Vs 

Behan s aes 
i ae dean wa TSP 
pate a] ey 

fal es eat 
fo es aaa 
ea |e | 
L | 
Vv | 

VAd ol 


LU iv 



2 al 

Ee EEa ; 
Te ret a 
[amg maya Les PRST 

Coe rise SHR 


RA pe 
oe fey (ENG cca cae 

|| aT 

5 | 
R | 

ae 1) 
sf fomt aa on nd AS ay She Pe) SST at 
hai eats ase MI gg eS SST 
eriaiad a a ahal aie lef cet el ale en LSet Zi ae 
eimai iila Asal calln pale aay Ses asses 
ala eS pRN ation aS) le betel Poles ete nes 
iia cee lal an SE mA ret 
aafinnean [SACRA S pe eg me | ae USTeare anh ee ST tate 
rosin FAH Te Pa a ap SIC ea pleat VP Pe 
(ov HY AVY aa POPE eS TT 
ee pale Ses 
is A a tee aga eI 
akan remand PPT 
Pe tt ttt J 
|_| ae 

| > 

a fe 
i ea 

ie er a 
ie es 

a Ste 
ce la 
é| RI 4 
(caret) i] eet) 


| a ; 









ae eS 
(a la 

= al 
roi || i 





i eft op ea ca eT ES le 

a if af LA emf 
i fmf a (alr aT gL) SL a 
alata ln mya elileleenleals epSEATT sie y 
ala Bla fel mealies ctey tate LEY | 



VOL. 83 




ee eae eel tl aI ate cade Yale] a] ep eed ee pl es | a Tees oe et 
Lt tt tt tt es Ps eta gg Ta sc I es a al 
= at bb ped tt ft 
es en ea] ayes ett) caf an [EST Tage Tes ST sa FT cer ses ST aD tesa Sete 
Ll AVR VGGNVAIN eine ais eS iae Se EBee S ee sea 
cha anette abe es [ete pi eT PSS SSIS dea gas a fs i P| 
| | CAAA | | | tot pt SEs SRP Reese 
Hess ogarag tin tt SeRRSS tt | SAPs Ts pe 
| | TT lsysak bdo\"09! | | eat eases ames se fa a a ei ie a at 

ase feat te esp fom es|ocet ee) ates eng om fe nett [ees Te Bei Te ee eis Fe en ea Oa ee pt age | 
BR eee ee erlae eee e re BEERS oe 
hat + tot tod aan tat Ate ata st] rh sae pi tte ete 
ak jodat tod waren | [aA waa s Ob rH ARTY aw FF ae ane ae ae 
er PPPEr eee eet et ea soe ee | 

a8 pt as Lewes see 
Hp Re eee Pte Pt tt te ae ot ttt | Ty sateksro ad [vive | 
HE eater tee Sepia Die lpm ot oferta all cote ener te ues JE] 
Bee eh eels er rere eee Pee ee ee eee 
PO ae Sa 
aleeresrG(tat A totes esl] eee oleae ed eo ph: veto sete Sepa rec] 
a RGR GGGEEE GOR Reese ocean 
9a (olde fe a6 a ||) sap fe || FR a Wi | ne fe tt 
TTT {LLL pdapdaps yirov7e jaiv7 vAcT Ter TT xe tehvgo|7r7pp 3 a 
Toye sep tod Soe troup yar pane ei Pes amperes rs eal] cote ete el feces et tanec PO Been eoede alles Epa ete | oa) 
. ELeOA | | | WOVLUTDV7O| YO FOHLE | FOSW TH 9S TwiLpyoeziM ie | | womypvis ba zowss) Zor|7i7! | | | 
PEt EE EL Aer | | 2 fe 
Sees Otero lalalelalabtaletice erste (a ee Sy eT esd: a ee eae ee Ee ites bales i abet 
BSeSe CRE CRRA Cee aE HE te ep 
ease en ene eee pene teonn Metre ete eenSbe c fal aa fe) po polaleret Pieiie ie Sree et apes Pero 1s ee eae tg) 
Fe Ey esta ae fay en yep at een gp om Pea] fl] af | af] op ps is ae ego aT eal eo ae | | es || ae | | 
Seas ee bee ar ees |r fea | ethics peace enw el dele eyelet eyes per ate Uab SEp eie fet[paieete| pee eae 
ey me a tt Fy ea EET pp 
ele ples eereno tee eee eyo) Sates) . m4 +4 eee tt ttt tt Tt 
eS eA Cee eee Peewee | REE eee fe] Veale ete pees | 
Peer eae mm elec ecre af ater le fear a oaucs ee | ugeatf eee | kon | ca] def eles 2] Ses aos] a) ee op oe or eid 
a ee pe ee 




The beginnings of the ability to shape stones and other objects 
for his use constitutes one of the essential criteria by which man 
is separable from his precursors, the others being a habitually upright 
posture, a complete liberation of the hands, a reduction of the canines 
and the jaws, a relatively large brain, an articulate language, a dawn 
of self-consciousness, and progressive association. 

The worked stones have been preserved where most other objects 
have perished, and thus human prehistory is represented principally 
by stone artifacts. Of these, great numbers have been recovered to 
date, reaching collectively into the millions, and large accessions are 
added each year. This vast amount of material covers the entire 
time of human existence, though naturally the earlier the period, 
the scantier it becomes; and while in general it progresses in multi- 
plicity of forms and in quality of workmanship, it does not progress 
evenly, but rather in steps or stages, which, once developed, have 
usually a prolonged duration. And the principal ones of these stages 
are utilized, together with such other data as are available, for the 
subdivision or classification of the prehistoric human period. This 
classification originated with the earlier prehistorians of France, such 
as Boucher de Perthes, Gabriel de Mortillet, and many others; and 
each subdivision received as a rule the name of the locality where 
first discovered. As time goes on, the stages are seen to be more 
complex, less regular, and less definitely separable than appeared to 
the older explorers ; nevertheless, the classification substantially holds 
for western Europe and to some extent perhaps even elsewhere. It 
is briefly as follows: 


Eolithic (the “ dawn” of stone work; involves much uncertainty ) 

Pre-Chellean (indefinite both as to time and forms) 

Chellean (named after village Chelles, near Paris) 

Acheulian (after St. Acheul, a suburb of Amiens ) 

Mousterian (or Neanderthal; latter name applied especially to human skeletal 
remains of this period, after Neanderthal, valley of the Neander, near Dussel- 
dorf, Germany; “ Mousterian” after Le Moustier, a village on the Vezere, 
Dordogne, France) 

Aurignacian (after village Aurignac, southern France) 

Solutrean (after a locality north of Lyon, France) 

Magdalenian (after “La Madeleine” cave, on the Vezere) 



Azilian-Tardenoisian (first after Mas d’Azil, southern France; second after 
another locality in France; both somewhat indefinite ) 

NeotitHic or NEw PortsHep STONE AGE 

Various local subdivisions; emerges into historic 

Early historic 

Tron AGE 

The principal forms of the stone implements that characterize these 
different cultural subdivisions of man’s past are shown in many books 
and other writings on’prehistory. So far as contributions in English 
are concerned, and for details and additional materials the reader 
must be referred to the reliable recent works of MacCurdy,’ Burkitt,’ 
Miss Boyle,’ and Peake with Fleure.* To a large number of earlier 
publications references will be found in these authors. 

The true geological relation and the exact antiquity of the older 
parts of man’s prehistory is still, it may be repeated, more or less 
uncertain, due partly to the far from complete archeological and 
paleontological knowledge, but even more so to the uncertainties about 
the exact subdivisions and duration of the Ice Age. The charts shown 
in figures I, 2, 3, and 4 give approximations of the human and the geo- 
logical conditions. Such approximations are becoming gradually more 
and more definite for the period since the greatest intensity of the 
last glaciation ; for the rest of the Ice Age they can only be provisional. 

One of the foremost needs and wishes of all who deal with man’s 
antiquity is the possibility of estimation of the different subdivisions 
of this in years. Geological terms alone do not suffice ; what is needed 
is the application to the various periods of human prehistory of 

*MacCurdy, G. G., Human Origins. 2 Vols., New York and London, Apple- 
ton & Co., 1924. 

* Burkitt, M. C., Prehistory. Cambridge, England, University Press, 1921. 

* Boyle, Mary E., In Search of Our Ancestors. Boston, Little, Brown & Co., 

* Peake, H., and Fleure, H. J., The Corridors of Time. A series of 8 small 
volumes dealing with human prehistory and later stages. New Haven, Yale 
University Press, 1927-19209. 


definite and well-known time standards. Sensible of the need, geol- 
ogists, paleontologists, and prehistorians have for a long time es- 
sayed, through the study of erosions and deposits, of the reduction 
changes in the radio-active elements, of the salt content of the 
seas, etc., to arrive at such estimates for all geological time* and for 
the Glacial Age in particular. But the results differ so widely that 
they are of little utility. Thus the estimates of the duration of the 
Ice Age range from 200,000 (or 250,000 if the first glaciation is in- 
cluded) years by Keith,’ to 1,000,000 years by Osborn.’ The esti- 
mates for the human periods by these two well qualified authorities 
are placed here side by side. They show the uncertainties of the case 
among even the foremost students of the question. To some of the 
American geologists (e.g., Rollin Chamberlin) the duration of the 
Ice Age appears even greater than estimated by Osborn. 

Conditions are incomparably better, as has already been mentioned, 
for the time since the maximum of the latest glaciation. Thanks 
especially to the painstaking researches of De Geer and Antevs, who 
in addition to other original work have studied the stratified glacial 
clays in Scandinavia and America, we now know that the length of 
time elapsed since the cold of the last glacial invasion had reached 
its maximum amounts close to 35,000 years. 

This datum is exceedingly valuable to human prehistory for it 
corresponds to the latest part of the Mousterian or Neanderthal 
period of man. The settling of this date, if fully corroborated by 
future research, establishes a substantial and most important mile- 
stone of human chronology, for it clears up the problem of the placing 
and collective duration of all the following paleolithic cultures, which 
comprise the Aurignacian, Solutrean and Magdalenian. 

A compounding of the various estimates, together with individual 
studies, has led me to the tentative chronology shown in the follow- 
ing table, the value of which is merely that of a plausible approxi- 

* See especially a symposium on The Age of the Earth, by T. C. Chamberlin, 
J. M. Clarke, E. W. Brown, and W. Duane. Proc. Amer. Philos. Soc., Vol. 61, 
pp. 247-288, 1922; with further references. Reprinted Smithsonian Ann. Rep. 
for 1922, pp. 241-273, 1924. 

* Keith, Sir Arthur, The Antiquity of Man. 3d ed., 2 Vols., London, 1927. 

* Osborn, Henry Fairfield, Our Ancestors Arrive in Scandinavia. Nat. Hist., 
Vol. 22, pp. 117-134, New York, 1922; also in Man Rises to Parnassus, p. 106, 
Princeton, 1927. 



AutuHor’s TABLE* 

Cultural Period, Western Europe Be; 
Neolithic (regionally variable) .........cccnceeeeecenensenes 7,000- 2,000 
Transitional (Azilian, Tardenoisian).............-++s+e+05 9,000- 6,000 
Moagdaletiian: jj. swiss ed Sete bc ned naan eel een ielia hse we ieee 14,000- 8,000 
Solutrean cx. actle ake onetime bak © Ohh ahe nie see ee ee eer 15,000-13,000 
Aatignacian | vs vin aft xiii sani ae aoe aepe AMR peerage a 30,000-15,000 
Moustetians ccc cece: eeteies ties renretstetn ate cael ote eer ene teneta ote 30,000 

1 It is to be understood that these dates, though based on the approximations by the fore- 
most students of the question and many collateral considerations, are given as no more than 
mere working suggestions. 

Sir Arthur Keith gives a chronology covering the entire human 
period. The estimates for the postglacial time agree fairly well with 
those of De Geer and, Antevs; but the others are necessarily more 
doubtful. The estimate for the Mousterian period, in particular, seems 
to need modification ; it appears too short and extends too far forward. 



INGOlItHIE. 285 tia cinenicisptae aerate eee eee teens 2,000- 8,000 B.C. 
AZilian,, cece sudi aes ae ech eee eee 8,000- 10,000 B. C. 
Mapiidletian cw: cess se eas tas te eG eae ere 10,000- 13,000 B. C. 
Soltitream’ Vets. tie fh eo eee eee roar eee 13,000- 15,000 B.C. 
Aurignaciany >) live he ae Fee Ree cetiin aio ae ere eee 15,000- 20,000 B. C. 
NOUStEHIAN’ feck ke ackoes Raane rion beet Gat ne eee 20,000- 40,000 B. C. 
Achettlian, is ss .cotcson ce ose one ea hee cee 40,000- 80,000 B. C. 
CGhellean.):.o. > cnjateice case oats De ee ee 80,000-120,000 B. C. 
Barly ‘Chellean 2.3 sc shan mapme seoeg ote mae 120,000-200,000 B. C. 
Pre-Chellean) <5 2 oss 2s aden usuecetas Set eee 200,000-300,000 B. C. 
Keentish: dE oliths: ‘sic wc ocic ve sociale ioe eee mean 300,000-350,000 B. C. 

1 Keith, Sir Arthur, The Antiquity of Man. Vol I, p. 224; Vol. II, p. 717, London, 1925. 

Thanks especially to Drs. Antevs and Leverett, I am able to add 
several estimates and some notes on the post-glacial time and its re- 
lation to man. Added also is a chronological table by Osborn * which 
embodies some individual views of that distinguished author. 

‘Man Rises to Parnassus, pp. 106-107, Princeton, 1927. 




Knud Jessen, 1920+ 

AHS TOI CPAIC Core wetter atte cee tN Oe cake ere Si ace So hs Rie Slate ated xen scans to 1100 A. D. 
OTA eur paeer deters Mejshage Aes a he cre oioees ctevsisendl oe Beso ge bers 1100 A. D.- 500 B.C. 
BLOUZCE AS CMTS CREE Cloner inate cial dciarnce ik safile sansa nae 500 B. C.-1500 B.C. 
Wounser NeolithiceStonesAgensseo eee st eee ceese es dee ee 1500 B. C.-3500 B.C. 
Older Neolithic Stone Age (Aertebglle, Kj¢kkenmgddin- 

SCT ae Hee reer cence reel aise aver onsen ee Te oh al/aieisilo ads beatae wanicie 3500-5000 B. C. 
Oldest Neolithic Stone Age (Mullerup, Maglemose)..... 5000-7000 B.C. 

1 Jessen, Knud, Bog investigations in North East Sjaelland. Danmarks Geolog. Under- 
ségelse, Ser. 2, No. 34, Table p. 269, Copenhagen, 1920. 


Sandegren, 19241 Munthe, 1925 ? 

labiunene INGE sotongoeqcoadc to 1000 A. D. to 1050 A. D. 
GONNA D Cy cme eect 1000 A. D.- 500 B.C. 1050 A. D.- 800 B.C. 
BNR OVIVAS JANES Gap ap oudoood ooo 500 B.C.-1900 B.C. 800 B.C.-1800 B.C. 
Stone CiStswncn serrata tere ae etree oe 2000) B. C. 
IP, re Graves 2500 ao 

assage Shea e pene ie eae Rte 2 Sets Than ee 1800-4000 
DD oleteri saab yee tote tice abo cacie sie ese 3000 § 3 8 g 
| EXOT Ys G'S) 3500) S789 
Olde NordieyStone Ages... ss50 ec 4500 B. C. 

Epipaleolithic Age (Maglemose)..... 6000 B. C. 

1 Sandegren, Ragnar, Ragundatraktens postglaciala utvecklingshistoria enligt den subfossila 
florans vittnesbord. Sveriges Geol. Undersokning, Ser. Ca, No. 12, Table p. 43, Stockholm, 
1924. 3 
2 Munthe, Henrik, Gotlands geologi. Sveriges Geol. Undersokning, Ser. C, No. 331 (Arsbok 
18, 1924, No. 3), pp. 74, 76, Stockholm, 1925. 


De Geer, 1925* 

EMASCORICH NG Cee eet tite fe Seine os Mice ent hes Seo ahOn teas to 1050 A. D. 
pening Ci eeee SERPS o thete ee ke ee ioe nae ee earls To500 Ay D.= 550) Bs GC, 
IBNROVAVAS® IAGO tet 5 yc a RHEE CS RTE HELO RECA Att ed, SRE. 550 B. C.-1900 B. C. 
INGGLEMICE ACE Marr maine ate cat te tro ae ee oe eS 1900-6800 B. C. 
IBYOV(S: le VETEE «, Doel A Ahn oe Rca eae ie APSE ESET ee eg ya a 6800-7874 B. C. 
ENC aT Eee ere Py sean orci Cae ta aiaics Seve acta areas suseaio eras masineee 7874-13,800? B. C. 

1 De Geer, Gerard, Forhistoriska tidsbestamningar. Ymer, Vol. 45, pp. 1-34, 1925. Re- 
viewed in Geogr. Rev., Vol. 16, pp. 170-171, 1926. See also Osborn, H. F., Our ancestors 
arrive in Scandinavia. Nat. Hist., Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 117-134, table p. 123, 1922. 





7000 Our ancestors arrive in Scandinavia 
with large flint implements and 
axes of reindeer horn 

Campignian culture in France, 8000 Maglemose (Mullerup) culture of 
Neolithic culture at Anau, Denmark—Domestic Dog 

9000 Moose (Elk) Period in Scania 
Close of Reindeer Period in 11000 Reindeer Period in Scania 
Southern France 

11500 Final retreat of the Scandinavian 
Glacier from Southern Scania 
Crete settled 12000 
Azilian and Tardenoisian micro- 13000 
flint industry from Spain and 14000 
north Africa 15000 
Magdalenian (Paleolithic) art 16000 Reindeer Period in Northern 
culture in France. Neolithic France 

culture at Susa, Persia 
Beginning of Neolithic in south- 18000 
western Asia 
Orient and France Denmark and Sweden 

Especially valuable aid in these connections was given to the writer 
by Professor Frank Leverett, and Dr. Ernst Antevs. Their com- 
munications follow. Dr. Antevs’ latest chronological tables for Europe 
are especially serviceable. 

Professor Leverett: 



NOVEMBER 25, 1928 
Dr. HrpiicKa: 

In reply to your letter of November 17 on chronology of glacial epoch, and 
recent papers pertaining thereto: 

The most important recent contribution is a book by Dr. Ernest Antevs (a stu- 
dent of De Geer) entitled “ The Last Glaciation,” published by the American 
Geographical Society, Research Series No. 17, 1928. 

Data furnished by Dr. F. W. Sardeson in the Minneapolis-St. Paul Folio of 
the United States Geological Survey make the date of the final southward flow 
of the glacial Lake Agassiz, and shifting of the outlet into the Hudson Bay 


Basin at less than 10,000 years ago. This being the case the ice sheet persisted 
west of Hudson Bay down to that time. It is probable that the ice sheet on the 
Labrador peninsula persisted down to fully as late a time as that west of 
Hudson Bay. 

I have written very little concerning the chronology of the glacial epoch, 
though I have had considerable correspondence with other glacialists on the 
subject. I differ from some of them in thinking that there was a prolonged 
period of extensive glaciation in the Wisconsin or latest glacial stage. I find 
that the ice sheet continued to grow westward long after the Labrador part had 
reached its limit at the Shelbyville moraine. As a result the extent or area of 
the ice sheet may have been greater in what is known as Late Wisconsin time 
than in the time of the Shelbyville moraine, though its eastern part had shrunk 
considerably by that time. I am inclined to make the culmination of the ice 
sheet cover a longer time than that involved in its growth to the Shelbyville 
moraine. I think the majority of the glacial students, here and in Europe, would 
make the last glacial stage cover a period of 74,000 to 100,000 years. I think at 
least 40 per cent of this stage should be allotted to the culmination, and 30 per 
cent or less to growth to the Shelbyville moraine, and a similar per cent to the 
departure of the ice sheet, the departure following the development of the Port 
Huron morainic system (see Monograph 53, U. S. Geol. Survey, for the place 
of this morainic system). 

As to earlier glacial stages, the time involved seems likely to be similar to that 
involved in the Wisconsin stage as the extent or area covered was but slightly 
different from that covered in the Wisconsin stage. 

The period between the Illinoian, or third glacial stage, and the Wisconsin, 
or last glacial stage, seems to be somewhat longer than that involved in either 
of these glacial stages. The basis for estimates is the relative amounts of erosion 
and weathering each drift has suffered. On this basis it seems safe to put the 
culmination of the Illinoian at not less than 200,000 years ago. 

On the basis of the amount of weathering and erosion displayed by the next 
older drift, the Kansan, it seems likely to date back at least a half million years. 
The Nebraskan, or first drift, is much older, but is so largely buried under the 
later drifts that one cannot well estimate its relative age. But I think it safe to 
say that it dates back not less than three fourths of a million years. 

I trust you will not take these estimates as at all exact in a mathematical sense. 
They are intended to merely express the general relations in time, though they 
are based on a study carried on for more than forty years. 

Very truly yours, 

Dr. Antevs: 


New York, N. Y., 
Nov. 7, 1928 

Dr. HrpiicKa: 
I listened with great interest to your lecture in the American Museum of 
Natural History last Monday and got a much more vivid idea of several prob- 


lems than I had by reading. Being much interested in coOperation between 
geology and anthropology, I wish to give some data on the present stand of the 
absolute clay geochronology. The stand in 1925 is treated in Geographical 
Review, Vol. 15, 1925, pp. 280-284. 

What is known in Europe is briefly this: 

1. The retreat of the last ice sheet from northeastern Scania, the southern- 
most province of Sweden, to Stugun in northern Sweden (63° N.) took some- 
what more than 4,000 years. The material as a whole is not yet published. The 
time may be tolerably correct—De Geer and Sauramo. 

2. When the ice edge had reached Stugun the ice rest split in two parts, and 
this event initiates postglacial age in Scandinavia. Postglacial age began about 
8,700 years ago. The material is not published. The figure may be practically 

The absolute geochronology in Europe thus takes us more than 4,000 plus 
8,700 years back in time, say 13,000 years. 

In “On the Solar Curve” (Geograf. Annaler, Stockholm, 1926) and else- 
where Baron De Geer has attempted to extend the European geochronology 
farther back by correlating varves in Denmark with such in southern Scania. 
The correlations, however, have no justification, being clearly contradicted by 
well-known conditions (see for instance Milthers in Geogr. Annaler, Vol. 9, 
1927, p. 162). The dating of the Baltic moraine in northern Germany at 18,000 
years before our time is only a guess. The correlation of this moraine with the 
ice edge in Scania is disproven in Denmark. 

The release from the ice of northern Germany and the Danish Islands was a 
very slow affair, as indicated by many morainic lines and readvances of the 
ice border (most recent summary in my “ The Last Glaciation,” p. 155). 

Varve correlations between North America and North Europe will perhaps 
never be possible, since the first condition is lacking, viz., knowledge that the 
summer temperature underwent the same yearly variations in the two areas. 
The transatlantic varve correlations made by De Geer (‘‘ On the Solar Curve” 
and elsewhere) betray a regrettable ignorance of the geology of North America 
and disregard for the work done here, besides violating the main principles of 
varve correlations. 

An attempt at correlating the major climatic late Quaternary fluctuations in 
the main areas of glaciation is made in my Canadian Geol. Survey Mem., 146, 
1925, and in the last glaciation. 

On the basis of De Geer’s, Sauramo’s, and Lidén’s clay studies in Sweden and 
Finland and my own in North America, on the estimates based on the Niagara 
Falls and on my transatlantic correlation I am inclined to place the climax of 
the last glaciation some 40,000 years back (‘‘ The Last Glaciation,” p. 168). 
However, since a restudy of parts of the Niagara gorge (by W. A. Johnston— 
not yet published) tend to show that it represents shorter time than previously 
supposed, this figure will perhaps prove to be too large. The maximum of the 
last glaciation lies perhaps some 35,000 years back in time. 

Very sincerely yours, 
Ernst ANTEVS. 



(Ernst ANTEVS, FEBRUARY, 1929 )* 
Sc a a 

Chrono logy Climatic Typical Stages in Scandinavian] Stages in Cultural 
periods forests, the Baltic] cultures last ice stages in 
(De Geer, Lidén, etc. retreat Central 

Sauramo, etc.) (Blytt, {von Post)]| (Munthe ) (Montelius, The Alps Purope 
Sernander ) etc.) (P.& B.etc.) 

0 1900 A.D. 

1000 1000 Sub- 1050 Historic 
2 rist maritime) ————— 
La Tene s 
500 ——_$ —— C 
3 1000 pee 
Post- Bronze 
4 2 (Warm, Stone Cists 
M4 continenta oO aaa 
glacial E FS Seer sae 
5000 + > 7 Dolmens Carnactan 
& |latiantic Littorina Robenhausean 
P 4 ( Warm, = 
maritime ) Kitchen = 
middens ‘° 
7 + 5000 5000— — Ce 
8 6 Maglemosean Maglemosean 
(Warm, dry) 
— 8700 
9 7 
- — 9775 Yoldia 
10008 —10070 
2 (Fenno- 
@ Scandian Gschnitz 7] Azilian 
ll 9 Moraines) 
12 10000 Arctic 
13 ll 
14 12 
13 Slacial 
15006 Magdalenian 

1 Communicated to the writer. 


Dr. Antevs’ latest estimates: 


Ernst ANTEvS, FEBRUARY, 1929* 

Stages of last ice retreat 

Chronology poy a A ain Cultures 
(Antevs, ! in 
De Geer, North America | North Europe The Alps Central 
Lidén) (Antevs) (Woldstedt, etc.) (P. & B., Hug) Europe 
Years ago “ es 
_ __ | 10,000 Cochrane Fenno-Scand. Gschnitz Azilian 
oan 1 gees (Ont.) moraines 
13,500 ; 
15,000 S. of Mattawa Eslov Buhl Magdalenian 
(Ont.) (Scania) 
Dani 20,000 (Achen retreat) Solutrean 
lacial 23,000 St. Johnsbury Pomerania Zurich 
giacia (Vt.) , ; 
28,000 Middletown Frankfurt Schlieren Aurignacian 
(Ct. (Poznan) : 
35,000 Long Island Brandenburg Killwangen Late 

A Mousterian 

1 Communication to the writer. 


For the duration and subdivisions of the Glacial Age and the post- 
glacial period, the following works may be consulted; they contain 
references to other literature on the subject: 

Antevs, Ernst. The last glaciation. New York, 1928. 

Bayer, JosepH. Der Mensch im Eiszeitalter. Vienna, 452 pp., numerous illus- 
trations, 1927. 

Brooks, C. E. P. Climate through the ages. London, 1926. 

CHAMBERLIN, T. C., and Sattspury, R. D. Geology, 1906. 

CHAMBERLIN, T. C. Map of North America during the great ice age. Chicago 
and New York, Rand McNally & Co., 1913. 

CoLtemaANn, A. P. An estimate of post-glacial and interglacial time in North 
America. Compte Rendu Congrés Internatl. Géol. XII, pp. 435-449, Canada, 
1913, Ottawa, 1914. 

Ice ages, recent and ancient. New York, 1926. 

Glacial and interglacial periods in Eastern Canada. Journ. Geol., 
Vol. 35, pp. 385-403, 1927. 

De Geer, Gerarp. A geochronology of the last 12,000 years. Compte Rendu 
Congres Internatl. Géol. XI, 4 Stockholm, 1910, fase. I, pp. 241-253, Stock- 
holm, 1912. 

On the solar curve as dating the ice age, the New York moraine and 
Niagara Falls through the Swedish time scale. Geogr. Annaler, Stockholm, 
Vol. 8, pp. 253-284, 1926. 

DépEret, Cu. Essai de coordination chronologique générale des temps quater- 
naires. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, 1918, 1920. 

La classification du Quaternaire et sa corrélation avec les niveaux 

préhistoriques. C. R. Soc. Géol. France, pp. 125-127, 1921. 


GEIKIE, J. The great ice age. 3d ed., 184. 

The antiquity of man in Europe. Edinburgh, 1o14. 

LEVERETT, FRANK. The Pleistocene glacial stages: Were there more than four? 
Proc. Amer. Phil. Soc., Vol. 65, pp. 105-118, 1926. 

Mayet, L., and Pissort, I. Abri-sous-roche préhistorique de La Colombiére prés 
Poncin (Ain). Ann. Univ. Lyon, N. S., Vol. 1, p. 180 et seq., 1915. 

Division géologique du quaternaire et niveaux archéologiques paléo- 

lithiques. Bull. Soc. Préhist. France, pp. 1-6, 1921. 

. Correlations géologiques et archéologiques du temps quaternaires. 
C. R., A. F. A. S., pp. 481-490, 1921. 

OBERMAIER, H. Der Mensch der Vorzeit. Berlin, 1912. 

Osporn, H. F. Review of the Pleistocene of Europe, Asia, and northern Africa. 
Ann. New York Acad. Sci., Vol. 26, pp. 215-315, 1915. 

Ossorn, H. F., and Reeps, C. A. Old and new standards of Pleistocene division 
in relation to the prehistory of man in Europe. Bull. Geol. Soc. America, 
Vol. 33, pp. 411-490, 1922. 

Penck, A., and Bruckner, E. Die Alpen im Eiszeitalter. 3 Vols., Leipzig, 1909. 

Rutot, A. L’état actuel de la question de l’antiquité de l’homme. Bull. Soc. Belg. 
Géol., Vol. 17, pp. 437 et seq., 1903. 

ScumipT, R. R., Koken, E., and Scuriz, A. Die diluviale Vorzeit Deutsch- 
lands. Stuttgart, 1912. 

SoERGEL, W. Losse, Eiszeiten und palaolitische Kulturen, etc. Jena, 1910. 

Warp, R. DEC. Climate, considered especially in relation to man. New York, 

Wiecers, F. Diluvialprahistorie als geologische Wissenschaft. Abh. Preuss. 
Geol. Landesanst., N. F. H. 84, 1920. 

ZSCHOKKE, Fritz. Die tierbiologische Bedeutung der Eiszeit. Fortschritte der 
naturwiss. Forschung, Vol. 4, pp. 103-148, 1912. 


However interesting and scientifically valuable the cultural remains 
of early man may be, the actual parts of the human beings of an- 
tiquity, which show what man was scores and hundreds of thousands 
of years ago, are immeasurably more so. The cultural remains are 
the indices of man’s gradual mastering of nature, of the slow advance 
in his mentality, and of the eventual unfolding of his esthetic procliv- 
ities. But the remains of man himself, though limited to his bones, 
give us the record of his own amazing differentiation, his evolution. 
It is insufficient to say that no other range of happenings in nature 
equals or even approaches in interest and importance that of man’s 
ascent; his evolution can only be adequately described as the para- 
mount phenomenon and achievement of nature. 

Regrettably, the skeletal remains of early man are far more scarce 
than the cultural. Of worked flints not one perhaps has been com- 
pletely destroyed unless by fire or through man’s own activities ; but 
bones are very perishable, and only rare good fortune as to the con- 
ditions surrounding them resulted in their preservation. Even then, 
in a very large majority of cases only some portions of the skull or 
skeleton escaped destruction, and those that did, have mostly become 
enclosed in old and now indurated deposits, or even in hard rock, 
without there being any outward traces of their presence. Thus it is 
that in general such precious remains are found only by accident, 
by laborers in excavations or quarrying; and many have been and 
doubtless still are being lost through damage or inattention. All this 
is particularly true of the older remains that would be of most im- 
portance, and accounts for the scarcity as well as the defects of such 
discoveries. The object of this treatise will be to give a reliable ac- 
count of all the more important of these remains based on the original 
reports, and supplemented by such measurements and data as the 
writer has personally been able to obtain or corroborate ; the utmost 
effort being made to present records that may be used with full confi- 
dence. Where plainly justified, critical remarks will be added, with 
the avoidance, however, of all personal argument. 


The question as to whether man originated first in the Quaternary 
or existed already in the latter parts of the Tertiary, is still unsettled. 



The problem has been discussed ever since the time of the French 
pioneers in prehistory. One of the foremost of the earlier protago- 
nists of Tertiary man was Gabriel de Mortillet in France; two of the 
latest are Reid Moir in England and Henry Fairfield Osborn in this 
country. The claims for the tertiary existence of man rest essentially 
on the evidence of apparently worked stones, the so-called “ eoliths,” 
in strata that are believed to be of Tertiary age. 

There are two serious difficulties in the case. The first is of geo- 
logical nature and concerns the boundary between the Quaternary 
and the Tertiary. This boundary is not definite, and the matter is 
complicated by the tendency of some workers to place the first glaci- 
ation in the Tertiary. Not until the geological and paleontological 
boundaries of the two eras are definitely and generally settled can the 
question of Tertiary man approach a final solution. 

The second and hardly lesser difficulty relates to the apparently 
worked stones, and consists in the uncertainties as to their true nature. 
Many of, the eoliths resemble intentionally chipped stones, but many 
flints that evidently came to be chipped by the action of the sun, frost, 
pressure and incidental violence of various kinds, show more or less 
similar resemblances. Various criteria for safely distinguishing real 
from false artifacts have been proposed, but also opposed." There is, 
it would seem, no valid reason against the existence of some primitive 
form of man in the upper Tertiary; but before this problem can be 
definitely settled, generally satisfactory conclusions both as to its 
geological and its archeological aspects must be reached. 


The preceding brief reference to the archeological side of the ques- 
tion of Tertiary man seemed called for merely to round out the 
subject, our real task in this work being the physical remains of man 

Only a few human skeletal remains have been attributed to Tertiary 
man, and none of these has withstood the tests of critical inquiry. 

* Consult numerous contributions to the subject in L’Homme (G. de Mortillet, 
1885, II, 289-299) ; Bull. Soc. Anthrop., Paris; Revue d’Anthropologie; L’An- 
thropologie; and the periodicals of the Royal Anthropological Institute. The 
subject is touched upon more or less in every book on human prehistory, and 
there are many articles relating to it dispersed through the scientific journals 
of various countries. The most recent yet still not decisive contributions to the 
subject are those of Osborn, H. F., Recent Discoveries Relating to the Origin 
and Antiquity of Man, Palaeobiologica, Vol. I, No. 1, pp. 189-202, 1928; and 
Moir, J. Reid, The Antiquity of Man in East Anglia, Cambridge, 1927. 



Only one of these deserves to be dealt with in this place and that only 
through the prominence given to it by one of the most distinguished 
of American paleontologists, Henry Fairfield Osborn. The specimen 
is the Foxhall jaw of southeastern England. 

In 1921, at the Washington meeting of the National Academy of 
Sciences, Professor Osborn expressed his belief that the Foxhall jaw 
represented a Tertiary man. In the latter part of the same year he 
wrote an article (published early in 1922) on “ The Pliocene Man of 
Foxhall in East Anglia,” * in which he proclaimed his belief in traces 
of Tertiary man at that locality, but was duly cautious about the jaw, 
though evidently inclined to the opinion that, if found again, the 
specimen (now lost) might prove of much value. 

During 1923-24, as a result of a visit to Foxhall and to the excava- 
tion where the jaw was supposed to have been found, I undertook a 
study of the find. At my request, Mr, Reid Moir furnished me with 
all the known details of the discovery, and these, with the original 
account of the find by Dr. R. H. Collyer and the results of my own 
study, were published in the American Journal of Physical Anthro- 
pology.. The main points brought out are as follows: 

The “ Foxhall jaw” was found in 1855, by workers excavating a 
bed of “coprolites”? near Ipswich, Suffolk. The specimen was pur- 
chased from the finder by a local druggist, given by him to Sir 
Thomas Beaver, in 1857 brought to the attention of Dr. Collyer, an 
American physician in London. In 1863 Dr. Collyer exhibited the 
bone to the Ethnological Society of London, and in 1867 published 
a short account of it * in which he plainly endeavors to establish the 
jaw as very ancient. Eventually Dr. Collyer is believed to have re- 
turned to America and probably to have taken the specimen with 
him; but all further traces of the jaw are since lost. 

The only details concerning the circumstances of the find are those 
given in a letter written eleven years after the discovery by J. Taylor, 
the druggist, to Dr. Collyer. In this letter he says: 

The history of the matter, so far as I know, is very short. 

From what I could learn at the time, from the agricultural laborer of whom 

I bought it, it came from the coprolite pit on the farm of Mr. Laws at Foxhall, 
about four miles from Ipswich and was thrown out at Mr. Packard’s manure 

* Nat. Hist., Vol. 21, pp. 565-576, New York, 1921. 

? Moir, J. Reid, The human jaw-bone found at Foxhall. Amer. Journ. Phys. 
Anthrop., 1924, Vol. 7, pp. 409-416; Collyer, Robert H., The fossil human jaw 
from Suffolk; ibid., pp. 117-120; and Hrdliéka, A., Critical notes on the Foxhall 
jaw; thid., pp. 420-424. 

* Anthrop. Rev., Vol. 5, pp. 331-339, London, 1867; republished as in preceding 


factory with the coprolite from a cart or tumbril, and from thence was brought 
to me to secure a glass of beer. I had possession of it for near three months, 
when Sir Thos. Beaver (whose son was then living with me) called on me, and 
seeing that he exhibited great interest in the inquiry as to the antiquity of the 
jaw, I had the pleasure of presenting him with it. 

There is no doubt the bone was obtained at some depth as I know the pit had 
been open for a considerable time when it was found. 

I visited the coprolite pit in 1855, immediately after it was found, and ascer- 
tained that it had been worked for over a year. The place from which “ the jaw,” 
in all probability, came was 16 feet below the surface. 

Before the publication of his paper Dr. Collyer took the specimen 
to Richard Owen, the comparative anatomist, ‘““ who kept it for two 
years without coming to any expressed opinion.’ During the dis- 
cussion following the presentation of the specimen before the London 
Ethnological Society, G. Busk, the paleontologist, “ pronounced the 
‘coprolite jaw ’ in the most summary manner to be ‘ the jaw of some 
old woman, perhaps from some Roman burial ground.” Huxley, 
after a careful examination of the specimen, which was loaned to him, 
wrote Collyer as follows: “ No doubt, as I stated when you were so 
good as to show me the jaw, it has some peculiar characters, but they 
do not appear to me in themselves adequate to lead me to ascribe the 
bone to an extinct or aberrant race of mankind, and the condition 
of the bone is not such as I should expect a crag fossil to be.” Later * 
Falconer and Busk write: “ The specimen is a very remarkable lower 
jaw of a human subject now belonging to Dr. Robert H. Collyer. It 
is reputed to have been found in the gravel heap of a coprolite pit 
near Ipswich; although retaining a portion of its gelatine, it is infil- 
trated through and through with iron. The Haversian cords are 
filled with red oxide, and a section of the fang shows that the ivory 
is partly infiltrated with the same metal. This specimen proves that 
the human jaw, if favorably placed, is equally susceptible of im- 
pregnation with metallic matter as the bones of any other mammal.” 
A month later Busk, after a further examination of the bone, writes 
Collyer: “I have considerably modified the opinion I hastily ex- 
pressed at the Ethnological Society. That is to say, it is very different 
from an ordinary churchyard bone, though of course, without any 
relation as regards age with the fossil bones of the coprolite beds ; 
it is of very great antiquity, and it is peculiarly remarkable for the 
great amount of iron it contains, though still retaining about 8 per 
cent of animal matter. On the whole, therefore, though not of the 
portentous antiquity it would have claimed had it been contemporary 
of Elephas meridionalis, the ‘ coprolite jaw’ fairly claims a consider- 

* Nat. Hist. Rev., July, 1863, Note 37. 


able age, and I, for one, am much obliged to you for having brought 
it under notice, and for the liberal way in which you have allowed it 
to be examined.” Since then the specimen has not been heard of. 

Professor Osborn, in the previously named publication (1921), 
after reviewing what is known about the specimen, writes as follows: 
“Tt would be hazardous for the writer even to express an opinion as 
to whether this jaw is of Pliocene age. The imperfect figure repro- 
duced on the opposite page shows it to be different from the two 
most ancient jaws we know, namely, those of the Piltdown and 
Heidelberg men, for it apparently had a prominent chin. It is possible 
that the mineralization of the jaw was due to deep intrusive burial. 
To settle these questions the jaw must be traced and found. Even if 
the jaw proves to belong to Homo sapiens, Doctor Collyer’s paper 
has suddenly become a classic because it has led to the long awaited 
discovery of Tertiary man, which may now be described. 

“Tt remained for Moir, half a century later, to unearth Collyer’s 
paper of 1867, to vindicate his entire procedure, and above all to 
rediscover the actual sixteen-foot level at Foxhall in which Doctor 
Collyer believed the jaw was located.” 

Mr. Moir himself, two years later,’ after similarly reviewing what 
is known about the jaw, says: “ The above account makes it clear 
that, while there seems much probability for regarding Collyer’s dis- 
covery as of considerable importance, the fact of this importance is 
not scientifically established. When all the circumstances of the case 
are considered, it is not possible to speak of the Foxhall jaw-bone 
as affording certain evidence of the existence of Tertiary man, nor 
is it desirable or reasonable that the acceptance or rejection of the 
flaked flints found by me, under strictly scientific conditions, at the 
16 foot level at this place, should be influenced by the specimen 
described by Collyer.” 

Discussion.—From all the preceding a number of facts seem clear. 
The first is that there is no authentic information as to the circum- 
stances of the find. The second is that for eight years the specimen 
lay unreported ; and that when eventually reported, men of the caliber 
of Owen, Busk, and Huxley were not impressed with its value, though 
the scientific world just then was quite alert as to the importance of 
such finds on account of the publicity given to the jaw of Abbeville 
(Molin Quignon). The bone was “ fossilized,’ through infiltration 
with red oxide of iron; but such changes are well known to depend on 
the geophysical and chemical conditions to which a specimen is sub- 
jected and are no safe criteria of time. 

* Amer. Journ. Phys. Anthrop., p. 416, 1924. 


As to the anatomical features of the jaw we have, fortunately, an 
evidently full-size drawing of the specimen in the Collyer report. 
This illustration both in form and dimensions indicates a relatively 
modern jaw. I have gone into this subject as closely as possible in 
my “Critical Notes”? on the jaw (Amer. Journ. Phys. Anthrop., 
1924, VII, 422-423) and the details need not be repeated. The results 
were as follows: All the measurements of the jaw, as deducted from 
a given dimension and the illustration, agree with those of a more 
or less modern male bone; and the size and conformation could only 
be associated with modern-like facial features; none of which is 

Fic. 5.—Foxhall jaw. 

compatible with the notion of any great antiquity. The conclusion 
was, and remains: 

Taking into consideration the uncertainties regarding the circumstances of 
the discovery; the good preservation of the specimen in a stratum where all 
animal bones were reduced to unidentifiable fragments; the considerable amount 
of animal material which the jaw retained; its form, which showed nothing what- 
ever primitive; and above all its measurements, which all fit among those of 
ordinary male jaws of recent white man, it may well be asked what remains as a 
basis on which the Foxhall jaw could receive any further consideration in con- 
nection with older Quaternary, not to say Tertiary, man. 

Thus the Foxhall jaw fails to establish its right as a representative 
of Tertiary man. The object of its somewhat extended consideration 
here is to give an example of a whole category of specimens that have 
at some time been regarded as very ancient, only to fail on closer 
examination to sustain this claim. Foremost among them are all the 


American “ Tertiary ’’ crania and bones, such as the Calaveras skull, 
the Diprothomo, Tetraprothomo, etc. of Ameghino, and others, in all 
of which the estimates and identifications were found to be erroneous, 
and such European specimens as the skulls of Canstadt, Eguisheim, 
Galley Hill, Tilbury, Ipswich, the jaw of Moulin Quignon, etc., in all 
of which, it has appeared, the age was much overestimated at first. 
Human prehistory has its pitfalls, as well as its triumphs. 



No finds relating to human prehistory have received more attention 
and publicity than those attributed to the Pithecanthropus, and none 
deserved more. Nor are the discussions yet ended. The remains 
consist, collectively, of a remarkable skullcap, three teeth, a fragment 
of a lower jaw, and a thigh bone. They were discovered between 
1890 and 1897 in Java, by or under the direction of Dr. Eugéne 

Dr. Dubois was appointed to the service in Java as a result of his 
own efforts. He was already an accomplished anatomist, paleontolo- 
gist, and student of human ancestry, and he went with the object of 
searching for possible human ancestors in the East Indies. From 1887 
he served as a “ Health-Officer of the second class ”’ in the military 
organization of the Colonies, but a considerable part of his time was 
devoted to a search of the caves in Sumatra and the collection of 
fossils. Among the fossils sent to him during this period were a 
pre-Malay skull collected by van Rietschoten, and some interesting 
mineralized human bones of “Australoid” type from Wadjak. 

In 1889 Dr. Dubois came to Java, and in April of that year he was 
delegated by the Colonial government, at his own desire, “ to extend 
his studies to the Tertiary and diluvial fauna of Java.” * From then 
on until the middle of 1895, the Government Mining Bulletin (“ Ver- 
slag van het Mijnwezen”’) carried quarterly a report by Dubois or 
others on the progress of his work, and it is in these reports that 
the original accounts of his very fortunate discoveries are recorded. 

*See Hrdlicka, A., Skeletal Remains Suggesting or Attributed to Early Man 
in North America. Bull. 33, Bur. Amer. Ethnol., 1907; Early Man in South 
America. Bull. 52, Bur. Amer. Ethnol., 1912; also, Bull. 66, Bur. Amer. 
Ethnol., 1918. 

*Verslag v. h. Mijnwezen, Batavia, 2 Quart., pp. 18-19, 1890. 


Paleontological work in Java had commenced well before the ad- 
vent of Dubois, and resulted in the discovery in the central parts of 
the island, more particularly along the Bengawan or Solo river and its 
tributaries, of fluviatile Pliocene to Pleistocene strata, parts of which 
proved to be rich in fossil remains of the fauna and flora of those 
times. In his best early report on these matters,’ Dr. Dubois gives the 
following information : 

By order of the Netherlands Indian Government I conducted in Java, from 
1890 to 1895, explorations for a fossil vertebrate fauna, of which already some 
remains had been discovered, many years ago, by Junghuhn and others, and later 
extensively described by Prof. K. Martin, of Leiden. I found a very large quan- 
tity of remains of mammals and reptiles, for the most part derived from extinct 
species, which show, as might be expected, an unmistakable relation to the later 
Tertiary avid Pleistocene faunae of India. 

The chief localities of these finds are in the southern slope of a range of low 
hills, the Kendengs, which extends between the residences Kediri, Madiun, and 
Surakarta on one side, and Rembang and Samarang on the other, in a length of 
about 60 miles. The area in which these vertebrate remains are abundantly 
found, in many places, may have on an average a breadth of from one to three 
miles. They are contained in beds of cemented volcanic tuff, consisting of clay, 
sand, lapilli stone, which especially, through the very general occurrence of the 
remains of freshwater animals, and of that fluviatile structure which English 
geologists call current-bedding, or false bedding, prove to be of fluviatile origin. 
The strata have undergone, in the whole area, considerable disturbances by fold- 
ing, on account of which they have, from east to west, dips of 3° to 15° ina 
general southerly direction. The whole formation reaches a maximum thickness 
of more than 350 meters. The strata rest, unconformably, upon beds of marine 
marl, sand, and limestone, recently determined by Prof. K.°Martin to be of 
Pliocene age. The fossil vertebrate fauna, which they contain, is everywhere in 
the Kendeng, and also in other places in Java, the same, and a homogeneous one. 
Its age can only be judged when the description of my collection, which I intend 
to give in the course of a few years, shall be published. But I have studied it 
already a little, and it can be said, in accordance with geological circumstances, 
and the relations which this fauna has with the Post-Tertiary and Pleistocene 
vertebrate faunae of India, that, most probably, it is young Pliocene; in no case, 
however, can it be younger than the oldest Pleistocene. For, whilst on the one 
hand the species surely belong almost exclusively to living genera—only the 
genus Leptobos and the sub-genera Stegodon and Hexaprotodon are extinct— 
and it must therefore be younger than the principal part of the Upper Miocene 
or Lower Pliocene Siwalik-fauna, including not a few extinct genera; on the 
other hand, the number of the extinct species seems to be in proportion some- 
what greater than that of the Narbada-fauna, which is put in the early Pleisto- 
cene. Further, the inclination which the strata show does not well agree with a 
Pleistocene age..... 

* Dubois, Eugene, On Pithecanthropus erectus: A Transitional Form Between 
Man and the Apes. Sci. Trans. Roy. Dub. Soc., Dublin, Vol. 6, ser. 2, pp. 1-18, 


From Trinil to Ngawi the steep banks of the Bengawan or Solo river, for 
an extent of 74 miles, consist exclusively of the above-mentioned volcanic sands 
and lapilli, cemented into soft rocks, very much like the rocks which I saw in 
the Siwalik hills. The strata have in this area a general dip S. of about 5°, and 
are only concealed by a thin covering of vegetable soil. In these strata the 

et Z E E 
; a 
i (e 
. aa 
y ; = Paywan ? ws 
Fr S 4 “sa 
~D New + SRS ion, Sidajoe 

[SR rot 
ti Rea he 
ee ee Aral te et 

5 eae) 

Fic. 6.—Central part of Java, showing the Solo (Bengawan) River and the site 
of the Pithecanthropus. 

Solo River has cut its channel 12 to 15 meters deep near Trinil. North and west 
of Trinil the Pliocene marl and limestone appear under them.” 

It was near Trinil, in the left bank of the river, at the foot of the Kendeng, 
that I came, in August, 1891, upon a place particularly rich in fossil bones, and 

“See also Dubois, Smithsonian Rep. for 1898, pp. 446-447. 


found there, in that and the following year, among a great number of remains of 
other vertebrates, bones and teeth of a great man-like mammal, which I have 
named Pithecanthropus erectus, considering it as a link connecting together 
Apes and Man..... 

Among hundreds of other skeleton remains, in the lapilli bed on the left bank 
of the river, the third molar tooth was first found in September; then, the hole 
having been enlarged, the cranium a month later, at about 1 meter distant from 
the former, but in the very same level of that bed. The species of mammals, 
of which remains were found in the same bed, are, for the greater part at least, 

a le 

Deo il Bey sy oh pes a Fes Cesc acs a7 o" aes 

Fic. 7.—Ossiferous strata in which the per te bones were dis- 
covered. B, soft sandstone; C, lapilli stratum; D, level at which the skeletal 
remains were found; £, conglomerate; F, argillaceous layer; G, marine breccia; 
H, wet-season level of the river; J, dry-season level of the river. 

extinct ones, and almost certainly none of them are at present living in Java. 
Among these remains we find a great number of the above-mentioned small 
species of Cervus, which certainly is not extant in the Malayan isles. Also many 
bones of Stegodon were found. One or two Bubalus species seem to be identical 
with Siwalik species; a Boselaphus undoubtedly differs from the known species, 
living and fossil. Further on there were found the extinct genus Leptobos, the 
genera Rhinoceros, Sus, Felis, Hyaena, and others; a Garial and a Crocodile, 
differing little from the existing species in India, but which cannot be classed 
among them. 

Of the animals found in the same strata in other places, the most interesting 
species are a gigantic Pangolin (Manis), three times as large as the existing 


Javanese species, and a Hippopotamus belonging to an extinct Siwalik subgenus. 
Further a Tapir and an Elephas. 

The work having been brought to an end that year on account of the setting 
in of the rainy season, it was taken up again at the beginning of the dry season 
in May, 1892, A new cutting was now made in the left rocky bank, which 
comprised the still unfinished part of the old excavation. Thereby bones were 
again found in great numbers, especially in the deeper beds; and among these, 
again in the same level of the lapilli bed, which had contained the skull-cap and 
the molar tooth, the left femur was found in August, at a distance of about 
15 meters from the former; and at last, in October, a second molar, at a distance 
of 3 meters at the most from the place where the skull-cap was discovered, and 
in the direction of the place where the femur had been dug out. This tooth I did 
not describe, because I only found it later among a collection of teeth derived 
from the place stated above. 

As a matter of fact at the time the first of the just mentioned 
remains were discovered, Dubois was already in possession of a 
fragment of an old lower jaw found early in 1890 in the fossiliferous 
layers of the Kendeng formation at one of the tributaries of the 
Bengawan river. 

The total Dubois finds eventually attributed by him to the Pithe- 
canthropus, and still in his possession, comprise the just mentioned 
lower jaw, the 1891-93 Trinil finds of two molar teeth, a skull-cap and 
a femur, and another tooth, a premolar, discovered in the Trinil de- 
posits several years later. 

These remains are all of such importance that they deserve separate 
and detailed attention. 


The history of the Dubois find as thus far given in scientific 
literature is more or less incomplete. The details, as obtainable from 
the original sources, were as follows: 

The first note of importance is found in the report for the first 
quarter of 1890." Dr. Dubois announces that he had discovered, on 
November 24, 1890, in the so-called Kendeng deposits of the water- 
shed of the Bengawan river, among typical remains of the old fauna 
and in the same sandstone-like andesite tufa, a human fossil, consisting 
of a fragment of a lower jaw, with the alveoli of the canine and the 
first and second premolars. The specimen leaves no doubt, he states, 
as to its human derivation. Its chin may have been even less prominent 
than that in the diluvial European jaws of LaNaulette or Sipka and 
possesses a remarkable flattening as well as hollowing out for the 

*Verslag v. h. Mijnwezen, Batavia, pp. 14-15, 1891. See also Natuurk. 
Tijdschr. Nederl. Indie, Vol. 51, p. 95, 1892. 


attachment of the digastric muscle, of a different type from those 
known so far. The man represented by this fossil lived in Java with 
the stegodont elephants and other extinct animals at the time when 
Java was still united with Asia. 

The find of the lower jaw is also mentioned by Dubois in the 
‘“ Natuurkundig Tijdschrift voor Nederlandsch-Indié” of 1891. He 
then considered the jaw as “a remain of a not exactly determinable 
human species,” and of “ another and probably lower type” than both 
the modern jaws and those that existed in the European diluvial times. 

There is no further report on the fragment and it seems to have 
been forgotten by scientific men. But in his latest report on the skull 
(1924) * Dr. Dubois devotes a few lines again to the specimen, and 
a little later publishes illustrations of it.” 

In this latest report, on page 266, Dubois states that the fragment 
was found near Kedung (=river) Brubus, in the same Kendeng 
layers that gave the remains of the Pithecanthropus ; on page 274, he 
adds: “A mandibular fragment, a small piece on the right of the sym- 
physis, was found in the same Kendeng-layers, but at 40 km. distance 
on the E. S. E. of Trinil, namely at Kedung Brubus, among other 
fossil remains of the Kendeng fauna. Its specific gravity is the same 
as that of the teeth and the other remains of Pithecanthropus.” And 
a little further: ‘‘ The mandibular fragment is a scalene-triangular 
piece of the corpus mandibulae, with a basis of 36 mm. (measured 
rectilinearly) of the lower border, immediately on the right of the 
symphysis. The apex is formed by the root of the anterior premolar 
tooth, which root has been preserved for the greater part. It is there 
30 mm, high. There further is preserved the back half of the flat 
alveolus of the caninus with its root point and part of the front plane 
of the alveolus of the posterior premolar tooth, under which is situ- 
ated the front edge of the foramen mentale, 12 mm. above the sharp 
lower border. In its full thickness the corpus mandibulae has only 
remained preserved at the septum of the alveoli of the caninus and 
the anterior premolar tooth. I now ascribe also this mandibular frag- 
ment to Pithecanthropus erectus, because what the teeth teach us is 
quite corroborated by the morphological characters of this small, but 
all the same very significant piece of the mandible.” 

* On the Principal Characters of the Cranium and the Brain, the Mandible and 
the Teeth of Pithecanthropus erectus. Proc. Acad. Sci., Amsterdam, Vol. 27, 
Nos. 3 and 4, pp. 265-278, 1924. 

* Figures of the Calvarium and Endocranial Cast, a Fragment of the Mandible 
and Three Teeth of Pithecanthropus erectus. Ibid., Nos. 5 and 6, pl. 8, with text 


H. Weinert, the foremost present German student of early skeletal 
remains of man, has studied the original fragment and reports upon 
it in his recent meritorious work on the Pithecanthropus.’ His first 
word is: “ With this fragment begin our difficulties as to the meaning 
of the Pithecanthropus finds.” It is to be recalled that the fragment 
came from the same geological deposits as at Trinil though at some 
distance away, that it was accompanied by the same Kendeng fauna, 
and that the bone has the same general aspect, color, and specific 
gravity as the Pithecanthropus remains from Trinil. Moreover, the 
root of the premolar of Trinil shows dimensions closely resembling 
those of a corresponding tooth in the lower jaw. All of which in- 
fluenced Dubois in attributing the fragment to the genus Pithecan- 
thropus. Yet the evidence for this is not decisive. Weinert gives 
several useful measurements of the fragment. They are as follows: 

Height of body between canine and first premolar.................. 27.8 mm. 
Greatest thickness of the bone at same place, at right angles to the 

Neh “wisi Biows dads cm easial lee roreciatie a A vies tea ie see lee rates ee feta es 14.4 mm. 
Depth or the: alveolus of the canine) Neate. qe ews dae ieee ieee es 14.0 mm. 

There was no broad distance between the canine and the premolar, 
the breadth of the septum between the two alveoli amounting to 
14.5 mm. The canine evidently was human rather than anthropoid. 

Small as the fragment is, it nevertheless shows marked differenti- 
ation in the sharp external border and the long and broad flattening 
of the under surface for the insertion of the digastric muscle. The 
symphysis, however, was human-like and apparently already possessed 
a slight chin. 

Considering the fragment alone, Dr. Weinert sees hardly any other 
possibilities than that of regarding it as human. Had it been found 
in Europe, it probably would have been attributed to the Neanderthal 
stage. As it is, neither the circumstances of its discovery nor the 
chemical, physical, and morphological characteristics of the speci- 
men permit its definite classification. It appears somewhat more 
human than, judging from the skullcap, would have been expected 
for the Pithecanthropus. But conclusions one way or the other will 
only become possible through further discoveries. 

The writer saw the fragment in 1923. Unfortunately so little is 
left that, as later found by Weinert, definite conclusions appear for 
the present impossible. The piece, while clearly belonging to a human- 
like mandible, conveys a strong impression of primitiveness, particu- 
larly in regard to the lower border. This border presents a remarkable, 

"Weinert, Hans, Pithecanthropus erectus. Z. Anat. u. Entwicklungsgesch., 
Vol. 87, pp. 522-524, I fig., 1928. 


sharply-bound, flat plane, of which I have never seen a counterpart 
in human jaws, not even in those of the Neanderthal and other old 
periods. Nevertheless intimate association of this lower jaw with the 
other remains attributed to the Pithecanthropus must for the time 
being remain merely conjectural. 


The first report by Dr. Dubois on the finds relating more directly 
to the Pithecanthropus, appears in his chapter on ‘“ Palaeontological 
Researches,” in the “ Verslag van het Mijnwezen,” Batavia, for the 
third quarter of 1891, pp. 13-14. Speaking of the work near “ Tinil ” 
(later Trinil), he says: ‘“ The most remarkable find however was a 
molar (the upper third permanent molar of the right side) of a 
chimpanzee (Anthropopithecus). This genus of anthropoid apes, 
now found only in the western and central equatorial Africa, lived 
in the Pliocene in India and also, as this discovery shows, in the 
Pleistocene period in Java.” 


In his report for the fourth quarter of 1891 (7bid., 13-15). Dr. 
Dubois announces the discovery of the skullcap, gives the first notes 
and measurements on it, and attempts its classification. The com- 
munication is of much interest. He says: “ The Pleistocene fauna 
of Java, which in September of this year was augmented by a molar 
of a chimpanzee, was much further enriched a month later. Close 
to the spot in the left bank of the river where the molar appeared, 
there was unearthed a fine skullcap which, with even less doubt 
than the molar, may be attributed to the genus Anthropopithecus 
troglodytes. That both the specimens come from a great manlike ape, 
is at once clear. The tooth differs from the third upper molar of the 
living chimpanzee only by a slightly greater size. The skull may 
readily be distinguished from that of the orang through its greater 
dolichocephaly, and from that of the gorilla through the absence of 
cranial crests, which are so pronounced in this most bellicose of the 
living anthropoids and are also still fully represented in the chimpan- 
zee. About the genus [of the form represented by the new finds] 
there can thus be no doubt. As to the species, the skull differs from 
that of the living chimpanzee by its greater size and its higher vault- 
ing. Its greatest length is 18.2 cm., greatest breadth 13.3 cm.” 


The question of the species of the new “ Pleistocene chimpanzee 
of Java” (p. 15) is undecided; but it is plain that while the living 
and also the India fossil chimpanzee, in their denture, approach man 
more than the orang or the gorilla do, the fossil chimpanzee of Java 
comes nearer to man also in the form of his skull. 


The next note of much interest by Dr. Dubois is found in his 
report for the third quarter of 1892 (Verslag v. h. Mijnwezen, 1893, 
pp. 10-14). He here announces the discovery, in August, 1892, of 
the femur, and gives the form represented by the finds its first specific 
name. The femur was discovered, he states, at the same level as 
the skullcap and tooth, but 15 meters (nearly 50 ft.) further up- 
stream; and it is plain to him that the three specimens, the tooth, 
skullcap and femur, belong to the same individual, probably a female 
of advanced age. Through this find it is now clear, he believes, that 
the “old Pleistocene” Javanese “ Anthropopithecus,’ whose skull 
shows it to have been the highest of the thus far known anthropoids, 
had also already assumed completely the upright posture. “ Through 
each of the three recovered skeletal parts, and especially by the thigh- 
bone, the Anthropopithecus erectus Eug. Dubois approaches man 
more closely than does any other anthropoid.”’ 

The skullcap receives here further consideration. Its measure- 
ments (slightly different from the first) are: greatest length 18.5 cm.; 
greatest breadth 13.0 cm.; capacity about 2.4 times that of the living 
chimpanzee and about 4 that of man. The skull in its form and 
other characters stands close to the genus Anthropopithecus (but also 
nears that of Hylobates), and is distinguished by its large size, its 
marked vaulting, and the relatively small development of its supra- 
orbital arch. The tooth in some respects is more advanced than those 
of the chimpanzee and gibbon; in other respects it comes nearer to 
the teeth of those animals than of man. The femur is remarkably 
human-like, with a few differences. Its bicondylar length is 45.5 cm., 
the relation of the thickness of the shaft at middle to the length is 
as 164:1. “ The characters of the bone make it certain that the 
Javanese Anthropopithecus stood and walked equally upright as man,” 
and that his hands and arms were free. Considering the apparently 
late appearance of man (p. 14) “it seems therefore quite possible 
that man has evolved from this old-Pleistocene Anthropopithecus 
erectus. And thus is also furnished an adverse proof to the opinion, 
expressed by some, that India was the cradle of man.” 



No original report on the second molar attributed to the Pithe- 
canthropus was located. It is not mentioned in the first accounts. 
However in his report for the fourth quarter of 1892 (op. cit., 1893, 
pp. 11-12) Dr. Dubois relates that the excavations at the Trinil site, 


where were discovered the remains of the “ remarkable anthropoid,” 
were continued till the middle of November, when rains made further 
work impossible. Among the fossils recovered was also a molar tooth 
“that probably belonged to a Cynocephalus.” This may have been 
the tooth in question, for in 1895-1896 Dr. Dubois writes’ that the 
second Trinil molar was discovered in October of 1892 at a distance 
of three meters (9.8 feet) from the original position of the skullcap 

and in the direction of the resting place of the femur. 


The discovery of this tooth was made known by Dr. Dubois, 
through a communication read by Duckworth, at the General Meeting 
of the Fourth International Congress of Zoology, Cambridge, August 
26, 1898. An account of this communication in the Journ. Anat. & 
Physiol., 1899, Vol. 33, 273, reads as follows: 

The speaker [E. Dubois] announced the discovery, during the past year 
[apparently therefore 1898], of another tooth referable to Pithecanthropus 
erectus, in further excavations at Trinil in Java, made under the speaker’s direc- 
tion. This tooth is remarkable as being the second left lower premolar, the 
tooth already found having belonged to the upper jaw. The fact that it was 
discovered in that part of the sandstone formation immediately adjoining the 
site of the other remains of Pithecanthropus erectus affords additional argument 
in favor of the individual identity of origin of all. 


With the season of 1893 the excavations at Trinil came to an end; 
1894 was given by Dubois to the study of the specimens and the 
publication of his important report; early in 1895 he made a trip 
to India and the Siwaliks, for comparative studies; during 1894-95 
his large paleontological collections were sent to the Rijks Museum 

*Dubois, E., On Pithecanthropus erectus: A Transitional Form between 
Man and Apes. Trans. Roy. Dubl. Soc., Vol. 6, Pt. 1, 1896; also under same 
title, Journ. Anthrop. Inst., Vol. 25, p. 242, 1896. See also C. R. III. Congr. Zool., 
Leyden, pp. 254-255, 1896. 


of Natural History at Leyden; and towards the end of the second 
quarter of 1895, Dubois himself departed for Europe (Versl. Mijnwe, 

Some further excavations at Trinil, during the dry seasons, were 
nevertheless carried on under the direction of Dubois until 1901, but 
they yielded, so far as anthropoid or human-like remains are con- 
cerned, only the premolar tooth, the find of which was reported in 
1898, as mentioned above, to the Fourth International Congress of 
Zoology at Cambridge, England. 

Shortly after his return, Dubois made a trip to Paris to show 
the specimens to Manouvrier, and the occasion, as narrated to me by 
Manouvrier, later my esteemed teacher and friend, nearly proved 
disastrous to the bones." 


In 1894 Dubois’ first important report on the Trinil remains ap- 
pears under the title “ Pithecanthropus erectus, eine menschenahnliche 
Uebergangsform aus Java,” 40 pp., 3 figs., 2 pls. (Batavia Landes 
Druckerei; reprinted 1915 by G. E. Stechert, N. Y.) 

In this he characterizes the new form as follows: 

Order: Primates 
New Family: Pithecanthropidae 

Skull (‘f Hirnschadel ”), absolutely as well as relatively to stature 
much more spacious than that of the Simdiidae, but less spacious than 
in the Hominidae; skull capacity about two-thirds of the average 
capacity in man, Inclination of the lower surface (“ Neigung der 
Nackenflache’’) of the occipital bone markedly stronger than in the 
Simiidae. Teeth, although reduced (“in Rtickbildung ”’), still of the 
type of the Simiidae. Femur equaling the human in dimensions and, 
like the human, developed for an upright posture. 

In the same original, able and painstaking memoir, Dr. Dubois 
(p. 4) gives his principal measurements of the skull and corresponding 

1 The incident deserves to be mentioned—if only as a part of the already rich 
romance of prehistory. Dr. Dubois, according to Manouvrier, brought the speci- 
mens in a hand satchel. After discussing them with Manouvrier in the Labora- 
tory, the two went to a nearby restaurant for supper. And so absorbed did they 
become in argument that as they left, the satchel was forgotten under the table. 
And they went some distance, still discussing, before Dubois suddenly missed 
his bag. There was little time lost in returning to the restaurant where, as the 
good guardian angel of the Pithecanthropus would have it, and perhaps because 
of the late hour, the satchel was still in its place. Nor is this the last piece of 
romance relating to these remains, as will be seen later. 


measurements of four chimpanzees and two gibbons. These original 
measurements deserve to be reproduced: 

Pithe- Anthropopithecus troglodytes ea Hylo- 
can- ates 
thropus ich a 9 See || redios 
erectus | Owen | Bisch| Bisch: cp ibois| SI | SIT 
Lange des Gehirnschad- | | | 
CISPR tetsckcs Sewio sites 185 | 134 | 137 138 | 132 | 100 93 85 
Grosste Breite des Ge- | 
hignschadelisieyecctreas 130 | 08 07 OI 70 68 62 
Breitenindex cs. 2664+ - 70 an | Fales) | O 690 70 73 74 
Temporale Breite ...... 90 68 | 5 

: | see 66 52 48 50 

Other measurements are given in the text (especially p. 11). The 
cranial capacity was estimated at somewhat over 1,000 cc. (p. II). 
The characteristics of the skull indicated, Dr. Dubois believed, that 
it ‘represented a form which must be classed in a different genus 
from those of Gorilla, Orang and Man”; it “approaches the skull 
of Man in its approximate size and its vaulting, showing, nevertheless, 
considerable resemblances to that of the chimpanzee and in form to 
that of the gibbon.” The various characteristics of the fossil skull 
indicated that it belonged to a female individual. 

The femur, according to Dubois, showed close resemblances to that 
of man, although also some differences. Its bicondylar length was 
45.5 cm. which, he believed, equaled that of a man of about 170 cm. 
in stature. The shaft was less curved forward than in man, and 
approached less the prismatic form. The circumference of the bone 
at the middle was 9.0 cm., its lateral diameter 2.75 cm., both much 
as in man. The popliteal plane, however, instead of being slightly 
concave or nearly flat as in man, is perceptibly convex ; this character 
is never met with in human femora. The angle of the neck, 175°, is 
near the average in man. The transverse and vertical diameters of 
the head are respectively 2.25 and 2.15 cm., agreeing closely with 
human dimensions. The intertrochanteric ridge differs from that in 
man, approaching that in an orang. The rest of the characteristics 
of the bone are essentially human-like, with here and there some 
deviation. The form of the lower articulation is as in man and unlike 
that in any of the anthropoid apes. 

Judging from the length and strength of the bone Dubois believed 
himself justified in assuming that the upper part of the body of the 



Pithecanthropus could not have been much different from that of 
man of today, and that the height of his body approximated 170 cm. 
(5 ft. 7in.). The being had a completely upright posture and walked 
habitually erect, which indicates at the same time a human-like free- 
dom of the arms and the hands. 

All the above showed conclusively to Dubois that the form could 
not be ascribed to the Swntidae; at the same time, numerous character- 
istics of the skull, those of the teeth, and some features even of the 
femur indicate that the form cannot be classed with those of the 
Hominidae. It is an intermediary form which necessitates its classi- 
fication as a new genus, the Pithecanthropus, and a new family, the 
Pithecanthropidae. Pithecanthropus erectus is a transitional form 
which must have existed between man and the anthropoids; “ it is 
the precursor (Vorfahr) of man” (p. 31). The inner and posterior 
of the upper fourth of the femur show a pronounced exostosis of 
pathological origin. Similar exostoses are known in man. 

Dubois’ reports on the Java finds, and above all the specimens 
themselves after he brought them to Holland, attracted naturally the 
liveliest attention of the scientific world. A number of prominent 
anthropologists, paleontologists, and anatomists, such as Manouvrier, 
Marsh, Flower, Virchow, Smith Woodward, Sir William Turner, 
Schwalbe, and others, were given the privilege of seeing the speci- 
mens; and September 15-21, 1895, the originals were exhibited to all 
before the Third International Zoological Congress at Leyden, where 
they received great attention and much discussion. On December 
14, 1895, the originals were shown again by Dubois, who at the same 
time presented a report upon them, at a special meeting of the Berliner 
Gesellschaft ftir Anthropologie ; and before long several bronze repli- 
cas were made of the skull for distribution to a few Institutions (one 
is at the Laboratoire d’Ecole d’Anthropologie, Paris), from which in 
turn were obtained plaster casts that became generally available. 

Soon, also, discussions of the subject by various workers began to 
appear in various scientific media. Two communications by Manou- 
vrier appeared in January and February, 1895,’ followed rapidly by 

*Manouvrier, L., Le Pithecanthropus. Rev. mens. Ecole Anthrop., Paris, 
Vol. 5, pp. 60-72, 4 figs., 1895. 
Discussion du “ Pithecanthropus erectus” comme précurseur pré- 
sumé de l'homme. Bull. Soc. Anthrop. Paris, Vol. 6, pp. 12-47, 6 figs., 1895 
(presented in January of same year, but not published until several of the fol- 
lowing papers appeared). 



those of Cunningham,’ Turner,’ Krause,’ Martin,’ a series of articles 
by Virchow,’ another communication by Dubois,’ and another by 

Since then many articles and notes have been published on these 
remains. Their bibliography alone would fill many pages.” There is 
much of controversy, but little original until we reach the exhaustive 
study of Schwalbe, 1899.” 

Dubois’ discovery was universally acknowledged as one of great 
importance ; but his views were soon combated. The case presented 
two main problems. The first was the question of whether the several 
parts, 7.e., the skull, the two teeth, and the femur, belonged to the 
same individual or at least to the same form; the other, that of the 
identification of this form. 

Dubois believed, as has been seen, that all four specimens, namely 
the skull, the two teeth, and the femur, belonged to one stratum, one 
age, and one individual, a female Pithecanthropus erectus. To this 

‘Cunningham, D. J., Dr. Dubois’ So-Called Missing Link. Nature, Vol. 51 
pp. 428-420, 1805. 

* Turner, Wm., On M. Dubois’ description of remains recently found in Java, 
with remarks on so-called transitional forms between Apes and Man. Journ. 
Anat. and Phys., Vol. 24, p. 424, 1805. 

* Krause, W., with Luschan, V., Virchow, R., and others, Pithecanthropus 
erectus, Verh. Berl. Ges. Anthrop., Z. Ethnol., Vol. 27, pp. 79-88, 1895. 

* Martin, R., Kritische Bedenken gegen den Pithecanthropus erectus Dubois. 
Globus, Vol. 67, p. 213, 18905. 

> Virchow, R., Pithecanthropus erectus Dubois. Verh. Berl. Ges. Anthrop., 
Z. Ethnol., Vol. 27, pp. 336-337, 435-440, 648-656, 723, 744-747, 787-793, 1895 
(‘““Exostosen und Hyperostosen von Extremitatenknochen des Menschen; im 
Hinblick auf den Pithecanthropus’’). 

® Dubois, E., Pithecanthropus erectus, betrachtet als eine wirkliche Ueber- 
gangsform und als Stammform des Menschen. Discussion by Nehring, Kollman, 
Virchow, and Jaekel. Verh. Berl. Ges. Anthrop., Z. Ethnol., Vol. 27, pp. 723-749, 

7 Manouvrier, L., Deuxiéme étude sur le “ Pithecanthropus erectus” comme 
précurseur présumé de l’homme. Bull. Soc. Anthrop. Paris, Vol. 6, pp. 553-651, 
1895. Also Moulages du crane et des dents du Pithecanthropus. Ibid., pp. 

® See especially Miller, Gerrit S., Jr., The controversy over human “ missing 
links.” Ann. Rep. Smithsonian Inst. 1928, pp. 447-457. 

° Schwalbe, G., Studien tiber Pithecanthropus erectus Dubois. Z. Morphol and 

Anthrop., Vol. 1, pp. 1-240, 1899. 
. Pithecanthropus erectus, eine Stammform des Menschen. Anat. Anz., 
Vol. 12, pp. 1-22, 1896. Published also, translated, under the title of “ Pithecan- 
thropus erectus: A Form from the Ancestral Stock of Mankind,” Smithsonian 
Rep. for 1898, pp. 445-459, 3 pls., 1900. 


there were soon many objections. The conclusions of Manouvrier, 
the foremost anthropologist of France (Bull. Soc. Anthrop., 1895, 
46, 648, 658), were cautiously favorable to those of Dubois. But 
Cunningham, Turner, Virchow, and others dissented. In 1896 
Marsh, in discussing the find in The American Journal of 
Science,’ was already able to enumerate the following objections of 
various authors (p. 476): “.... the various remains discovered were 
human, and of no great age; that they did not belong to the same 
individual ; that the skull apparently pertained to an idiot; and that 
both the skull and femur showed pathological features.” 
For himself Marsh says (p. 482) : 

After a careful study of all the Pithecanthropus remains and of the evidence 
presented as to the original discovery, the position in which the remains were 
found, and the associated fossils, my own conclusions may be briefly stated, as 

The remains of Pithecanthropus at present known are of Pliocene age, and 
the associated vertebrate fauna resembles that of the Siwalik Hills of India. 

The various specimens of Pithecanthropus apparently belonged to one indi- 

This individual was not human, but represented a form intermediate between 
man and the higher apes. 

If it be true, as some have contended, that the different remains had no con- 
nection with each other, this simply proves that Dr. Dubois has made several 
important discoveries instead of one. All the remains are certainly anthropoid, 
and if any of them are human, the antiquity of man extends back into the Ter- 
tiary, and his affinities with the higher apes become much nearer than has hith- 
erto been supposed. 

The dissenting opinions of some of the greatest scientific authorities 
of the time, anatomists, anthropologists, and paleontologists, deserve 
to be quoted. 

Cunningham: * As a result of his study and comparisons this author 
reaches the conclusion that “the fossil cranium described by Dubois 
is unquestionably to be regarded as human. It is the lowest human 
cranium which has yet been described. It presents many Neanderthal- 
oid characters, but stands very nearly as much below the Neanderthal 
skull as the latter does below the ordinary European skull. *. . . .” 

As to the femur “ that it is human in every respect, no one could 
for a single moment doubt... . . From the fact of the femur being 
found at a distance of from 12 to 15 m. from the place where the 

"Marsh, O. C., On the Pithecanthropus erectus, from the Tertiary of Java. 
Amer. Journ. Sci., Vol. I, pp. 473-482, 1896. 

* Cunningham, D. J., Dr. Dubois’ So-Called Missing Link. Nature, Vol. 51, 
pp. 428-429, 1895. 


cranium was discovered, as well as from other considerations, it is 
very unlikely that the two specimens belonged to the same individual.” 

The fossil tooth (r. u. M 3), while very remarkable, “ is fashioned 
more after the human model than simian. 

“ From what has been said, it will be seen that the skull and the 
tooth, even granting that they are from the same individual, present 
no such characters as would warrant the formation of a new family. 
The cranium at least is undoubtedly human. Most certainly they are 
not derived from a transition form between any of the existing an- 
thropoid apes and man; such a form does not and cannot exist, seeing 
that the divarication of the ape and man has taken place low down 
in the genealogical tree, and each has followed, for good or bad, 
its own path. The so-called Pithecanthropus is in the direct human 
line, although it occupies a place on this considerably lower than 
any human form at present known.” 

For Sir William Turner,’ it was not at all certain that the three 
bones belonged to the same creature. A comparison of the skull with 
several specimens of the skulls of aboriginals, left him unconvinced 
that it might not have belonged to a human being. The features of 
the femur could all be made out in a large collection of human thigh 
bones, and the tooth had quite as much resemblance to the tooth of a 
human being as to the tooth of an ape. He considered that the remains 
were of a low human type. 

Nehring, in his discussion of the Dubois paper in Berlin, December 
14, 1895 (Z. Ethn., 1895, Vol. 27, pp. 738-739), views the matter in a 
different light; he says: “I hold it as very probable that the cranium 
and the thigh bone, as well as both teeth, belong together’; but it 
remains uncertain whether the remains may represent a being in 
direct or a collateral line to man. 

Rudolf Virchow, finally, has come to the following conclusions 
(Z. Ethn., 1895, Vol. 27, several papers; esp. p. 744): “that the 
skullcap had not belonged to a man, but that much more it shows 
the greatest resemblances with the skullcap of a Hylobates ” ; and he 
is of the opinion that “in accord with all the rules of classification 
this being [represented by the skullcap] was an animal and that an 
ape.” The teeth appeared to Virchow more ape-like than human. 
The femur, notwithstanding its resemblance to the human, “ shows in 
its straightness, as in the rounding of its diaphysis, particularly in 
its lower part, so many agreements with the femur of a gibbon, that 

* Turner, Wm., On M. Dubois’ description of remains recently found in Java, 
with remarks on so-called transitional forms between Apes and Man. Journ. 
Anat. and Phys., Vol. 24, p. 424, 1895. 


I find no difficulty in attributing it to a giant gibbon” (pp. 746-747). 
However (p. 749) regardless of “whether the Pithecanthropus 
was a transitional form to Man, or an ape, it represents a new 
member in the line of forms which enable us to see the entire great 
field of the Vertebrates as an evolutionally connected whole.” 


By 1897 knowledge of the famous discovery and its discussions 
had become generalized, without, however, an agreement being 
reached as to their true meaning. Dubois’ contributions to the subject 
gradually ceased; and the remains themselves became no longer 
readily accessible; various students, including the writer (1912), 
failed to obtain permission to see them; even the whereabouts and 
finally the very existence of the specimens became uncertain and 
many curious conjectures were raised as to their fate. 

The keen interest in the find had, however, by no means died out, 
and in 1907-1908 it culminated in a new “ geological and paleontolog- 
ical”? expedition to Trinil by Mme. Selenka, the energetic widow of 
the well known Munich zoologist of the same name, and Professor 
Max Blanckenhorn of Berlin. The valuable results of the extensive 
two seasons’ work were published in 1g11." No further remains related 
to the ‘‘ Pithecanthropus ” were discovered. In another locality (near 
Sondé, a few miles from Trinil) and under circumstances suggesting 
a possible antiquity, the crown of a human molar was found, “ by a 
trustworthy white man.” This tooth was described in the Selenka- 
Blanckenhorn memoir by Walkhoff (pp. 214-221, pl. XXVIII), who 
believed it possessed a number of features pointing to a considerable 
age; but Dubois, on seeing the specimen, pronounced it “a wholly 
recent and white human lower jaw molar.” * 

The next noteworthy point in the history of the celebrated 
remains was the posthumous publication of Schwalbe’s study of the 
femur.” Schwalbe’s conclusion, though old (1899), deserves to be 
quoted in full. The results are, he says, that the bone “has nothing 
to do with either the Gibbon or with the remaining anthropoids, and 

* Selenka, M. Lenore, and Blanckenhorn, Max, Die Pithecanthropus-Schichten 
auf Java. 258 pp., 22 pls., numerous figs., Leipzig, 1911. 

27. Kel. niederl. Ges. Erdk., Vol. 25, Afl. 6, 1908; Selenka and Blanckenhorn’s 
memoir, p. 214. 

* Schwalbe, G., Studien iiber das Femur von Pithecanthropus erectus Dubois. 
Z. Morphol. u. Anthrop., Vol. 21, pp. 289-360, 1921. Prepared for publication by 
Eugen Fischer. 


is also readily distinguishable from that of the lower apes, while a 
difference from the human femur lies possibly in the somewhat greater 
relative length of the diaphysis. At all events the Trinil femur stands 
so near to the human that on its basis alone the position of the 
Pithecanthropus would have to be looked for immediately next to that 
of man.” As to the question whether the thigh bone belongs to the 
skull, Schwalbe, in accord with Nehring, Dames, Jaekel and others, 
holds as “ much more probable that all the parts of the Dubois find 
belong together, than that they represent different individuals, the 
femur a man and the skullcap some great ape” (p. 357). As to 
the nature of the being represented by all the remains, Schwalbe 
inclines to the Dubois’ notion of its intermediary position between the 
anthropoids and man. 

In the summer of 1923 the writer visited Europe in the temporary 
role of a director of the “American School for Prehistoric Studies in 
Europe.” The first visit was to Dr. Smith Woodward at the British 
Museum of Natural History. Before going over we had had some 
correspondence in which I expressed my great desire to see the 
Pithecanthropus originals. These wishes had most kindly been com- 
municated to Dr. Dubois at Amsterdam, and upon my arrival, to my 
great astonishment and joy, Dr. Smith Woodward handed me a tele- 
gram from Dr. Dubois inviting me most courteously to the Teyler 
Museum in Haarlem, his home town, where he would show me all 
the originals in his possession. This great privilege was taken full 
advantage of by me and my class on July 15. It was the first time 
the precious specimens had been shown to a scientific man after their 
long seclusion. We found Dr. Dubois a big-bodied and big-hearted 
man, who received us with a cordial simplicity. He had all the speci- 
mens in his possession brought out from the strong boxes in which 
they are kept, demonstrated them to us personally, and then permitted 
me to handle them to my satisfaction. Besides the four specimens 
attributed originally to the Pithecanthropus there was the additional 
tooth (a premolar), the fragment of the curious fossilized lower jaw, 
and two interesting, australoid-like, mineralized skeletons from 
Wadjak. The interior of the skullcap of the Pithecanthropus had 
now been completely freed from the consolidated tufa that filled it 
before; a cast of it was made, and revealed a very remarkable 
brain of an unexpectedly human-like conformation. 

The examination of the originals made a deep impression. It was 
seen that none of the casts of the skull that have been found in dif- 
ferent Institutions was wholly faithful, and the same was felt to be 
true of the previously published illustrations. The originals were seen 


to be even more important than they had seemed to be hitherto. 
Dr. Dubois told us he had about finished a final study of the speci- 
mens, which was soon to be published. 

Later the same summer the specimens were shown also to Pro- 
fessor McGregor, of Columbia University; since then, they have 
been demonstrated on a number of occasions, including that of the 
XXI International Congress of Americanists at Hague, 1924, and 
they have been studied in detail by Hans Weinert. 


During that same year (1924), finally, there appeared in the Pro- 
ceedings of the Academy of Sciences, Amsterdam, three new im- 
portant publications on the Pithecanthropus remains by Dr. Dubois; 
the first,’ on the skull and brain with which the author now definitely 
associates the fossil mandible, all three teeth and the thigh bone; 
the second* includes 11 excellent plates of the specimens; and the 
third * deals with the femur, and promises for the not far distant 
future a final exhaustive work on the whole of the remains. 

In these latest and ripest communications on the Java remains are 
found the following statements of special interest : 



The bones are in a “state of perfect mineralization” (p. 265). 
Their specific gravity, like that of the bones of other mammals dug up 
at Trinil, has risen to about 2.7. They contain only traces of organic 
matter in the form of humus substances, “ which give them a choco- 
late-brown color.” The skullcap “has been greatly corroded on the 
outer surface by sulphuric acid, formed from pyrites in the volcanic 
tufa’’; the femur (vol. 29, pp. 730-731) appears to be free from such 

The physical and chemical characters of the bones are such, in 
Dubois’ opinion, that they “ stamp the remains of Pithecanthropus as 
Pliocene” (p. 266) ; which possibility is further strengthened by the 

* Dubois, E., On the Principal Characters of the Cranium and the Brain, the 
Mandible and the Teeth of Pithecanthropus erectus. Proc. Acad. Sci., Amster- 
dam, Vol. 27, Nos. 3 and 4, pp. 265-278, 1924. 

os , Figures of the Calvarium and Endocranial Cast, a Fragment of the 
Mandible and three Teeth of Pithecanthropus erectus. Ibid., Nos. 5 and 6, 
PP. 459-464. 

- , On the Principal Characters of the Femur of Pithecanthropus erectus. 
Ibid., Vol. 29, No. 5, pp. 730-743, 1926. 


somatological characteristics of the specimens. Dubois, therefore, 
is still inclined to regard the Pithecanthropus remains as [late] Plio- 
cene rather than Pleistocene. 


The skullcap, in Dubois’ opinion (not shared by others), “ has 
been deformed in a natural way (through trigonocephalism, though 
in a small degree) ”’ (p. 266). 

Looked at from above, the skullcap is markedly ovoid, with the 

narrower part in front and extended forward by a large though not 
very heavy supraorbital shelf which contains large frontal sinuses. 
This “ whole precerebral part of the frontal bone is hylobatoid, like 
the rest, 1(p: 267): 
_ The outer surface of the frontal bone shows antero-posteriorly 
along its middle a slight keel-shaped elevation which terminates above, 
in about the position of the bregma, in a somewhat more marked 
rhomboid prominence. Dubois believes this prominence was less 
marked before the bone was corroded. The median ridge is the so- 
called median frontal torus and is believed to be due in Man to an 
early fusion of the two fetal halves of the frontal bone. 

Ventrally, the skullcap, particularly in the frontal region, shows 
strong impressions of the cerebral convolutions. In details of its 
conformation it agrees partly with man, partly with the gibbon. 
“The form of the skull of the Pithecanthropus (p. 269) is on the 
whole not human; nor is it a transition of any type of manlike apes 
to the human type.” The agreement “ with the anthropoid cranial 
type, particularly that of the small gibbon species, of the genus 
Hylobates, may on the other hand be called perfect”; it extends to 
many features such as the arching of the vault, the receding forehead, 
the pre-cerebral part of the frontal bone, the constriction behind the 
orbits, etc. “In all these points Pithecanthropus is distinguished no 
less strongly than the Anthropoid Apes from the Neanderthal Man.” 
The detailed characteristics of the skull indicate now to Dubois that 
the erect posture of the body of the Pithecanthropus, “ which clearly 
appears from the shape of the femur, was not such a perfect one as 
in Man; the correlation, at least, did not extend to the skull. 

“ Nor can the skull, however, have belonged to an Anthropoid Ape, 
because the relatively very large skull as regards shape presents a 
close, nay striking resemblance with the skull of a small Hylobates 
species, the smallest of the Anthropoid Apes, whereas judging not 
only from the femur and the molar teeth, but also from the skull 
itself, Pithecanthropus must have surpassed the size of a large chim- 
panzee, and very much that of a middle-sized man” (p. 270). 



As to the size of the brain, “‘ it may be assumed that with equal body 
weight Pithecanthropus possessed double the brain quantity of the 
Anthropoid Apes” (p. 271). The endocranial cast in its side view 
“presents a striking resemblance with the endocranial cast of a small 
Hyilobates species reproduced at the same size... . . There is on 
the other hand a great difference—and a difference of great im- 
portance—between the profile of the endocranial cast and that of the 
Neanderthal Man of La Chapelle-aux-Saints ” (pp. 271-272). 

Although the Neanderthal casts, because of their comparatively low 
height, appear also more simian than the cast of the brain of Homo 
sapiens, both differ markedly from that of the Pithecanthropus in 
that the parietal region is considerably more developed. Of the cere- 
bral fissures the “ most conspicuous, in the front, is, on the right side, 
the sulcus frontalis inferior, as clear and unmistakable as in any 
human hemisphere, but in the simplest form, such as it presents 
shortly before birth” (p. 273). “ We meet, therefore, with already 
perfectly human forms in the frontal cerebral gyri of Pithecanthro- 
pus.” But in other respects “ the brain of Pithecanthropus is not dis- 
tinguished qualitatively, only quantitatively, from that of the Anthro- 
poid Apes. The double brain quantity (for equal bulk), is the most 
important characteristic that distinguishes Pithecanthropus from the 
Anthropoid Apes.” 

To which Dubois adds (p. 274): “ It seems to me that it is evident, 
at least, from all this that Man and Pithecanthropus both descend 
from a common primitive Simian ancestor. From this among the 
living species, the Hylobatidae, though greatly differentiated by their 
long arms and sabre-shaped canines, depart least, several fossil 
Simiidae still less. Also through his mandible and teeth Pithecanthro- 
pus deviated less from this common stock type than the three living 
Gigantanthropoidea and the Hylobatidae.” 

And p. 178: “ The approach of the mandible and the teeth, as also 
of the femur, to the human type, and the large cranial capacity, 
added to considerations on the brain-quantities in nearly allied mam- 
malian genera, all this leads me to the conclusion that Pithecanthropus 
should be considered as a member, but a distinct genus, of the family 
of the Hominidae.” 

No special discussion is given to the three teeth, but their detailed 

characteristics are noted in connection with their figures." These 

1 Proc. Acad. Sci. Amsterdam, Vol. 27, Nos. 5-6, 1924. 


details as basic data on the teeth are of importance and are therefore 
given here in full: 

Anterior left lower premolar. Crown or surface view. Human dimensions and 
general pattern. On the buccal surface a circle segment-like facet of wear by 
the upper caninus. On the mesial side an irregular concave facet of contact with 
the lower caninus. At the summit a strongly developed buccal cusp. No lingual 
cusp, on its place only confluence of the lingual and connecting transverse rim. 
The latter dividing the crown surface into a small anterior and a large posterior 
fossa. A ridge starting from the inner side of the (buccal) cusp descends in the 
posterior fossa. The same is seen in many anterior lower premolar crowns of 
anthropoid apes. Distally of (behind) the (buccal) cusp a surface of wear by 
the anterior upper premolar. 

Mesial (anterior) view. Showing the inward bending high buccal, the in- 
ward sloping upper and the low lingual side of the crown. Below and before the 
cusp the irregular facet of contact with the lower caninus. Bipartite lower part 
of the root, the point of the lingual-distal part broken off. 

Distal (posterior) view. Near to lingual side a crescent-like facet of contact 
with the lower posterior premolar. 

Lingual (internal) view. Low lingual crown side. The two fossae. Broaden- 
ing of the crown upwards. Oblique position of the root (directed backwards). 

Buccal (outer) view. Circle segment-like facet of wear by the upper canine. 
High buccal crownside. 

Penultimate left upper molar. Crown or surface view. Surface smoothly worn 
off. The buccal-distal cusp part small, very much as in many homonymous orang- 
utan molars. Strongly divergent roots. 

Root view. Single lingual root. Buccal root (in this individual) composed 
of three fused elements, one distal (posterior) and two mesial (anterior) ones. 

Mesial (anterior) view. A large semi-ovoid facet of contact with m.* Buccal 
and lingual roots strongly divergent, the lingual root departing mostly from 
the vertical line. 

Distal (posterior) view. Ellipse-like facet of contact with m.* 

Lingual (internal) view. Direction of the roots backwards. 

Buccal (external) view. The root showing the two fused buccal elements. 

Last right. upper molar. Crown or surface view. Little worn. Moderately 
wrinkled, much less so than in orang-utan. Semi-ovoid as in some orang-utans, 
by moderate development of the distal-lingual and excessive reduction of the 
distal-buccal cusp. The crown as a whole shows reduction. The constriction. 
towards the masticatory surface indicates late piercing of this tooth. 

Root view. Of the strongly divergent roots the buccal one of this individual 
composed of three fused elements, one of which distal and two mesial. 

Mesial (anterior) view. Likewise as in Fig. 30 the lingual root mostly de- 
parting from the vertical line. No facet of contact with m,’ probably a conse- 
quence of the still little use of the tooth on this side. 

Distal (posterior) view. Lingual (internal) view. Buccal (external) view. 
Roots strongly directed backwards, more so than those of m.? 


The femur is nearly complete and little injured. Some marks of 
“ crocodile teeth” are to be seen at its upper portion. “ The large ex- 


ostosis below the trochanter minor takes the place of the intermuscular 
connective tissue between the vastus medialis and the adductors..... 
The resemblance of the fossil femur to that of Man, in contrast to 
the Apes, is very marked in the knee-joint, which was adapted for 
perfect extension of theleg..... In the rontgenogram, both in that 
of the upper end of the femur and the lower end, the “ trajectoria ” of 
the human type may be recognized, though on account of the filled 
cavities they are not so clear as in other thigh-bones. 

“Two characters distinguish the Trinil femur very decidedly from 
that of Man. These are in physiological relation to each other, though 
the first refers to the form of the lower part of the diaphysis and 
the other to that of the trochanter major at the superior extremity 
of the femur. Down to low on the popliteal surface and beginning 
at more than 11 cm. above the level of the patellar articular surface 
the back side shows a median swelling and rounding.” In no human 
femur described or known to the author does this convexity rise in 
the same degree or does it bulge upwards to such a buttress-like 
median swelling as in the Pithecanthropus. 

In the “ cross-sections of the fossil femur the complete absence of 
an angulus medialis also strikes the eye, in contrast with the human 
femur, but in accordance with this bone in Apes. In Man the inner 
side (as angulus medialis) remains free from attachment of muscles ; 
in the Apes, on the other hand, the origin of the vastus intermedius 
or of the vastus medialis continues on the inner side of the femur, 
enveloping this bone continuously. Thus it seems also to have been 
in Pithecanthropus.” 

The peculiar shape of the lowest third of the femur is attributable, 
according to Dr. Dubois, to static and mechanical catises and hence 
modified muscle attachments, in the lower limb of the Pithecan- 

The second special character “that very definitely distinguishes 
the femur of Pithecanthropus from that of Man, and which is in 
physiological relation to the just described character, is the position 
of the trochanter major in the continuation of the diaphysis. ... . 
The posterior border with the whole great trochanter is directed 
vertically upward. In Man, on the other hand, as well as in almost 
all Apes, Monkeys and Baboons the posterior border with the whole 
great trochanter has an oblique direction upwards and forward (fig. 
32, femur of a Dutchman). In Pithecanthropus the great trochanter 
is not placed on the diaphysis slanting forward as in Man and in 
the whole Monkey tribe, with the exception of two genera, but forms 


as it were, a prolongation of the diaphysis upwards. This points 
to a peculiar condition of the musculus glutaeus medius (and the m. 
gl. minimus) in Pithecanthropus.” 

Judging from the characteristics.of the upper portion of the femur, 
the Pithecanthropus in Dr. Dubois’ opinion “ cannot have possessed 
a human-shaped pelvis, but as the femur could to all appearance be 
extended to a human degree, the pelvis may have been comparatively 
more human than that of Hylobates and Chimpanzee. The tendon 
of the glutaeus medius was inserted more posteriorly of the center 
of rotation of the hip-joint, and produced, therefore, a stronger out- 
ward rotation constantly accompanying the abduction. With fixed 
leg the strong muscle brought the center of gravity of the body from 
the other side above that leg, and turned the front of the trunk to 
the other side. With such an unhuman pelvis the locomotion of 
Pithecanthropus cannot have been exclusively, perhaps not even 
chiefly, on the ground. The erect type was not perfectly developed.” 

The characteristics of the hip-joint’and also the knee-joint “ render 
it probable that Pithecanthropus was less ground-walker than tree- 
climber, but did not climb with a prehensile foot, in the way of 
ENDESE hh se The femur of Pithecanthropus was, therefore, also fit 
for locomotion on the ground, but by no means adapted so exclusively 
for it as in Homo sapiens and Homo neandertalensis.” 


In his 1924 publications on the Pithecanthropus skullcap and femur 
Dr. Dubois gives a series of measurements which doubtless are his 
latest taken on the originals and are therefore of considerable im- 
portance. The principal ones are as follows: 


AM erie tattle xe» CEU CEM cs 8) do sists sais: ctu ts a fedw is cnmeierstoletovare old a alin 'slerela eine oiaial vse 18.4 cm. 
Length max., as obtained on the damaged specimen.................- 18.05 
AS REAG tiny iMlaKe ahd cere epoyalas sro cksio chase clots nia eee wa apMacaise GAD OG wll ee 13.1 
(CE reeatn a perc exe ayes wean acess yah sisi cyatepetaretae muarare ope lwieis seas ale ios Sani eeesaiass!s Gye: 
Calvarial height (height max. above the glabella-inion line).......... 6.1 
Mai MROMEAAMITIS, | TOW x acco osc. siaha: odes s/n) aces, Syx'o. loi ese ejeyeisee'e\stateseis, ole. e (8.7) 
Diam trontalomini undamaged, was probably... scs0-.-cs-+ce es cee 9.1 
Extenialsocnitalmactals breadth estimated ssc ceiiaieeieeleeieicce cles les 
Fronto-biorbital index (percental relation last two diams. ) 
approx. 79. 

Nearest) approach of temporal lines; probably. ----...-...--.....----- 85 
Sagittal arc-length: 

FirOmtall ie paltctyeacesys cieracrerserataverel cic leorxs) sist sickers en's 6 2 6.0%e a01e! stonele: sue oieierele 10.0 

IES tal tical me tae tetas cravat cote crerter sa oie lemavccaoShore ashe bof oneesiohela tevelio: apace 9.0 

Occipitalauppeim Paves -k aepeieresawilele a eleicie isi clel\ <tc oversis Si esckele = e.ceie's 4.5 


Fronto-partetal' index: sic cteeaecincee Hoe eo ene aero 90. 
Endocranial : 
15 0-3 0 0h 00 6 eRe ae eer ere ire sion ich aniceM a IA Ons cL GSior 4 i a an 
EBT EAC thie WM Kes 5 ecole: eee so acete hoes eae PeL a Ue elec thes eke ok es recess eS 12.4 
Ward Os ee cies mea lotere eet eaea etre etnies ete nine Madar omiee eee erate enere 80. 
Height max. (above the line of max. transverse diam.).......... 5.8 
Cranial (capacity, ipresent, conclusion approx: -).4 1 seliesiaills er iaietdels goo cc. 


(Dusots )* 

Wieicht on theubone jaaenen sau someecie 1,018 grams 
(This is more than twice the weight of a similar nonfossilized: human femur 
of same size. ) 

WMolumexofethe bone. ca eects kc ie Ceo oie ee ceer ani 485 cc. 
Volume of the bone without exostosis, nearly.............0 cece e cence 467 cc. 

(On an average, negroes and also Australians have a slightly less voluminous 
femur, at the same length; in Europeans, on the other hand, it is on the average 
much more voluminous. ) 

Bengthibicondylar, seerisclscciod © opektiatelt estinokaeiae meters ohernctyersreia iets 45.5 cm. 
At middle: 
ATIteErO-pOSt: PGlatn. Gras tates 6 a eatle oleh tere aE Deere etter 2.9) ‘em: 
URTANS VETS), IAI. Waeras SS aioe eleeietate eiehe ouaaetoleiean ate oe Chae era 28" (ene 
Gircumference 125 Soiasok svsreata oeisrate mistehee elonsia aise eee et erselee erate 8.9 cm. 
The head: 
EATISVEESEY GIANT. © ciel, «a oars OR eia a ee EIS lon ee oR ea etehevei cet 4.47 cm. 
Sagittal diam: (perpendicular ‘to preceding). .- 42. ose 4.40 cm. 
Curvaturesot the) diaphysis: science que ets woes ecee a ceeisinereeicite 8 mm. 

(In comparison with most human femora this curvature is slight, the summit 
of the curve low.) 

Aaig exon tOrSiOn) fesshslars, «cus cnach sic ailotaiel orcestern Siaiehetne MOC Rata ES oe Pea 19 
Anglerot necks with Shait 2544 «vats escoe hemigrs Sreete sone ene eens 123 

The pressure-axis in man passes through the external condyle; in the Trinil 
femur it falls between the condyles. 

The convexity of the posterior surface of the lower end of the Trinil femur 
exceeds that in any human femur known or described. 


As to the geological age of the deposits from which the Pithecan- 
thropus remains were recovered, Dubois at first (1895) was un- 
certain whether to attribute them to the latest Pliocene or early 
Pleistocene, but later (1896) was inclined to regard them as Pliocene. 

* Dubois, E., On the Principal Characters of the Femur of Pithecanthropus 
erectus. Proc. Acad. Sci. Amsterdam, Vol. 29, No. 5, pp. 730-743, 33 figs., 1926. 


The latter view was, according to Schuster, supported by Stremme ;’ 
for K, and Frau Martin and Elbert * the deposits were old Quaternary ; 
for Pohlig,’ Volz * and Carthaus * mid-Quaternary. Julius Schuster,’ 
on the basis of his study of the plant remains secured by the Selenka 
1907-08 Expedition to Trinil, from the Pithecanthropus deposits, 
reached the conclusion that they date from the time when Java 
[and Sumatra]was still connected with the Asiatic mainland; that 
this connection was severed in the old diluvial [early Quaternary] 
times ; and that the flora of the Pithecanthropus layer, and necessarily 
also the remains of the latter, could be neither more recent nor older 
than the old diluvium [early Quaternary], and that the nature of the 
flora speaks for a cooler and moister period.’ In his more extended 
report in the Selenka-Blanckenhorn Memoir * Schuster believed that 
he had demonstrated that ‘the Pithecanthropus erectus lived in the 
Old-Diluvium [early Quaternary] and that during the large Pluvial 
period.” Blanckenhorn * (p. 268), after critically reviewing the whole 
evidence, decided also for the Great Rainy period, or, more definitely, 
for the first (Gtinz-Mindel) interglacial. 


The remains ascribed to the “ Pithecanthropus ” have, as indicated 
in the preceding pages, given rise to a great deal of scientific specu- 
lation and contention, which to this day has led to no definite, stab- 
ilized result. What are the causes of this unsatisfactory condition? 

The causes are multiple; they relate to everything from the circum- 
stances of the find to the identification of the remains. But viewed 
with due perspective they reduce to two main difficulties that will be 
met with again and again in the studies of early man and related 
forms. The first of these is the inadequacy of the Java material ; and 
the second is the lack of sufficient materials for decisive comparisons. 

Defects of the material—The Trinil remains occur in secondary de- 
posits ; the initial data on them are perhaps not as detailed as desirable ; 

.*In Selenka, M. Lenore, and Blanckenhorn, Max, Die Pithecanthropus 

Schichten auf Java, Leipzig, 1911; with the collaboration of E. Carthaus, C. M. 
Dozy, K. and H. Martin, H. Stremme, H. Pohlig, Walkhoff, D. Schuster, and 

* Ueber das Alter der Kendeng-Schichten mit Pithecanthropus. Neu. Jahrb. f. 
Min., Beil., Vol. 25, pp. 648-652, 1908. 

* Eiszeit und Urgeschichte des Menschen, p. 88, 1907. 

*Gaea, Vol. 45, p. 385 et seq., 1909. 

* Schuster, J., Ein Beitrag zur Pithecanthropus-Frage. Sitzber. K. Bayer. A. K. 
‘Wiss., Abh. 17, 30 pp., 1909. Munich, 1910. 


they were not found sufficiently close together, especially in the case of 
the femur, to remove all doubt as to their belonging to the same indi- 
vidual or even the same form; the skull shows considerable loss of 
parts as well as substance, conditions not present in the femur ; while 
morphologically there seems to be some disharmony between the dif- 
ferent specimens, so that their ready acceptance as representatives 
of one form and one individual is initially rather difficult. 

As to the localization of the specimens, it is not easy to conceive 
how the skull and a femur of the same individual, in any, but especially 
in secondary deposits—if the Trinil deposits are such—could come 
to lie 50 feet from each other; though such an occurrence cannot be 
said to be impossible even in secondary accumulations. Here is the 
first weakness in the case. 

The skull had certainly suffered much damage before its final 
inclusion. Though evidently proceeding from an elderly individual 
where many of the sutures are closed and all the parts are resistant, 
it nevertheless has lost the whole face and especially the whole base. 
This may mean a rot, or mechanical damage, or both. None of this, 
we know amply from experience, is inconsistent with the status of 
the skullcap as found; it is also true that such a strong bone as the 
femur may persist almost intact, especially on the surface of the 
ground, though the skull and most other parts of the skeleton may 
have been more or less destroyed. Nevertheless finding two specimens 
well apart and in such different states of preservation, cannot but raise 
a question as to their belonging to the same individual. This is the 
second weakness of the find. 

The morphological details of the several parts offer a number of 

The skull shows obliteration of all the sutures of the vault, which 
indicates an elderly individual. In such elderly primitive beings, 
whether human or anthropoid, the teeth are generally more or less 
worn; but of the three teeth associated with this Trinil cranium the 
anterior left lower premolar shows practically no wear, the last right 
upper molar is little worn, while the penultimate left upper molar 
shows a surface that is smoothly worn off (Dubois, Proc. Acad. Sci. 
Amsterdam, 1924, Nos. 5 and 6, pp. 463-464, pls. [IX-XI). These 
conditions are inconsistent with the notion that all these teeth and the 
skull belong together. Here is another incongruity and hence weak- 
ness; but there are others. 

The skullcap indicates plainly enough a female individual, as well 
recognized by Dubois and not effectively contradicted by other 
students. The length of the femur, however, corresponds to a stature 


of at least 165 cm. This would agree with about the medium human 
stature in a male, but is far above that of the female, the average 
human female height except in a few of the tallest human groups 
approximating 153 cm. It would further mean that the corresponding 
male Pithecanthropus had a stature of about 177 cm. (nearly 5 ft. 
TO in.) or over. All of which is possible, or may have been modified 
through a different relation in the Pithecanthropus of the length of 
the femur to that of the body. Nevertheless the matter constitutes 
another aspect of the case on which more light is needed. 

All of this, and there are other points, cannot but leave the 
association of the several parts found at Trinil, however probable 
this may appear, in some uncertainty; which is further increased 
by the late definite attachment to the Trinil remains of the Brubus 

But all this is not the pivotal essential of the find, and diminishes 
in no wise its high interest and value, both of which are universally 
acknowledged, particularly since the endocranial cast has become 
available. Neither should the student allow himself to be confused 
by the seeming flood of discrepancies of opinion on the remains. The 
differences are often more apparent than real, and even where real 
they by no means discredit the find, but are only so many attempts, 
under all the great limitations of our present collections and knowl- 
edge, to reach a true conclusion. 

The Trinil skull alone is sufficient to establish the presence in what 
is now Java, somewhere during the early Quaternary and possibly 
earlier, of a class of beings that so resembled the anthropoid apes, on 
one hand, and came so far in the direction of man on the other, that 
if they were to be named today we could hardly find a more appropri- 
ate name for them than “ Pithecanthropus.” 

Broadly speaking, it is really of littke moment whether one student 
calls these beings giant gibbons, another human precursors, or inter- 
mediary forms, and a third a proto-homo, or even a very low man; 
unless they have strayed from the truth through a lack of sufficient 
contact with the remains, they all mean a form somewhere between 
the status of all the known apes and all except perhaps the earliest 
man. Who can say just where we could class a being with such an 
ape-like skullcap, but with such a near-human brain within it, if he 
appeared in life today? Witness the conclusions of the able discov- 
erer himself, who has had the originals at hand now for 36 years; 
first they represent for him a great chimpanzee, then a human pre- 
cursor and direct ancestor, and then an intermediary but not human 
ancestral form. 


The brain form of the “ Pithecanthropus,” which, because of the 
filling of the skull cavity with a hard mass, did not become observable 
until three years ago, is exceedingly important (pl. 7). Its size and 
form and gyration appear to remove it at once from the brains of all 
known apes and bring it correspondingly closer to that of man. It is 
inconsistent with and morphologically superior to its own skull. The 
brain cavity measured in capacity at least goo cc. and this for a female. 
A corresponding male brain cavity would measure somewhere about 
1,100 cc. These dimensions connect already with the human. In the 
writer’s collections, in the U. S. National Museum, there are 32 
American Indian skulls, of small statured but otherwise apparently 
normal individuals, ranging in capacity from 910 to 1,020 cc. In the 
hugest gorilla this capacity does not exceed, so far as known, and 
mostly is well below, 600 cc.; and in the chimpanzee or orang it never 
reaches even this size. The frontal lobes of the Java specimen, while 
still low, approach in their form the human, lacking the pointed, 
keel-shaped appearance they have in all the apes; and the rest of 
the brain was of a higher type than that of the apes. Had this form 
advanced in its brain size and form by again as much as it already 
stood above that of the known apes, it would be wholly impossible 
to exclude it from the human category, unless it was done by the 
establishment of a separate genus of creatures, equivalent in brain 
mass and brain differentiation to Homo. 

With all this it could not be legitimate to assert that the Pithec- 
anthropus was either a form of early man or one that eventually 
evolved into man. Either of these conclusions would demand decisive 
supporting material, which does not exist. The most that appears 
justifiable, until further and conclusive evidence appears, is to regard 
the Pithecanthropus, as represented by the skullcap, to have been a 
high Primate of as yet uncertain ancestry and no known progeny, 
far advanced in what may be termed a humanoid direction. 

As to the teeth and femur, they must remain more or less proble- 
matical until further discoveries. They are not absolutely needed 
by the Pithecanthropus for his establishment, though they, particu- 
larly the femur, would, if definitely identified with the skullcap, 
enlighten us on points of importance. The two molars, with much 
probability, belong to the skull; the premolar, the femur and especially 
the lower jaw, are much more doubtful. There is some legitimate 
doubt whether individually or collectively they belong even to the 
same form of beings. But if not, then the problem, instead of being 
simplified, becomes much more complex, for we are then confronted 
with the question as to what were the additional creatures repre- 
sented by these specimens. 


All of which points most insistently to the great need as well as 
promise of much further paleontological explorations in Java and the 
far southeast in general. 


Before the 1924 publications by Dubois were received, the writer 
was enabled to make a visit to Java, the main object of which was to 
see personally the conditions at the site of the Pithecanthropus.’ The 
object was not to excavate, which for various reasons would hardly 
have been feasible, but to obtain that invaluable impression which 
comes only from personal examination. The colonial authorities and 
in particular the scientific men of Java gave all possible assistance, 
for which once more the writer wishes to tender them a grateful 
acknowledgment. Preliminary inquiries resulted in the information 
that there was then no vertebrate paleontologist nor any student of 
prehistory on the island, that no systematic work was being done in 
these lines, and that the collections in the local museums and insti- 
tutions contained little if any human or primate material. Since the 
Selenka Expedition no further work has been done at Trinil. 

On May 24, the writer left Bandoeng, and after a highly interesting 
11-hour trip through the central parts of Java, arrived at Madioen, 
a good-sized town and the seat of a Residency of the district to which 
Trinil belongs. The same evening arrangements were made with the 
Assistant Resident, Mr. J. T. H. Jarman, at Ngawi for the visit to 
Trinil, and early next morning the start was made in a motor car and 
over a good road to Ngawi, 21 km. (13 miles) distant. At Ngawi, 
Mr. Jarman met us with his Chief of Police and two motor bicycles 
with side cars; and in a short time the party was on its way to 
Trinil, 15 km. (nearly 94 m.) distant. 

We stopped at a plantation, a short distance from the river; and 
as a pleasant surprise arranged by Mr. Jarman there came in a few 
minutes several natives, each carrying a basket with a lot of black 
objects in it—fossil bones from the Pithecanthropus site. These were 
eagerly examined on the spot—but regrettably there was no trace 
of any Pithecanthropus. 

A few minutes’ walk brought us to the elevated right bank of the 
Bengawan or, in the native pronunciation, Banawan river. A little 
to the right was seen a concrete monument, three feet high, with the 
inscription: P. e—175 M., with an arrow pointing towards the spot 

*For preliminary account of the voyage, see Explorations and Field-Work of 
the Smithsonian Institution in 1925, Smithsonian Misc. Coll., Vol. 78, No. 1, 
pp. 60-72, 4 figs., 1926. 


on the opposite shore where the remains were discovered ; and under- 
neath was the date 1891/93. This monument was erected here by 
Dubois both to commemorate the find and to fix the point where it 
was made. Regrettably the concrete is beginning to crumble, so that 
already the valuable landmark needs restoration. 

From this point, at the time of low water, the river ranges from 
approximately 75 to 200 feet in breadth. The water is sluggish and 
greenish mud-gray in color, with muddy flats exposed at the edges 
as if after a tide. The Pithecanthropus site appears as a low ledge 
covered with what looks like rocks, dark grayish brown in color. 
The river shows no very deep erosion, and the crumbling banks are 
mostly steep. Cultivated land extends on both sides and there is no 
jungle, though parts of the shore are covered with wild growth. 
The river meanders through what appears to be a shallow depression, 
on a plain, between the great Lawu volcano to the south and a distant 
low ridge to the north. 

Outside of the monument there were no traces remaining of either 
Dubois’ or Selenka’s excavations, and only one old man in our party 
knew the sites. 

By this time a dozen or more native men and boys had congregated 
on the elevated bank opposite the site of the Pithecanthropus, squat- 
ting on the ground, and before each was a little pile of specimens— 
more fossil bones from the site of the Pithecanthropus. Some of 
these fossil bones were said to have been picked up on the site 
since the night before. A number of nice specimens were sold by 
the natives for a mere pittance, but again no trace of anything 
even suggesting a primate. Several of the boys, as soon as they dis- 
posed of what they had, shed the little clothing they had on, and 
naked, waded and swam across the river to look for some more, 
but found only a few slivers. When the writer was ferried over, 
nothing of any value was left. 

On closer examination the terrain is seen to rise from the river 
in this vicinity to two platforms of different heights, the lower on 
the right side of the river being about 20 feet above the present level 
of the water. Further down the river, as seen later, the banks are 
of rather uniform height, ranging to about 20 feet above the level 
of the water at that time. They show stratified sands and fine gravel, 
but the stratification is not uniform or always horizontal. Here and 
there are seen strata of coarse and more consolidated gravels or 
lapilli, and beneath this once in a while appear dark blackish-blue 
patches resembling that at the Pithecanthropus site. On closer exami- 


nation most of these dark lower deposits are seen to consist of gravel, 
or lapilli, sand and mud, with what was seemingly originally volcanic 

The Pithecanthropus level had evidently just been exposed by the 
receding water. It was found covered with irregular small “ledges ”’ 
and different sized “ rocks,’ some more solid, yellowish, sandstone- 
like, others dark in color, consisting of gravel, sand and mud, and not 
very solid, being quite easily broken by a harder stone and then 
crumbling in the fingers. 

The stratification of the bank at this site was obscured, but its 
main features were known from a chart prepared by the Selenka 
Expedition in 1910. The site itself is not large and a few hours 
of examination gave about all that could be had without excavation. 
A native boat was then engaged and in this the writer made first 
a little trip upstream, and then proceeded slowly down the Bengawan 
examining the banks on both sides wherever they seemed to offer 
anything of interest, down to Ngawi, which was reached that evening. 
This is a wholly native river, and many interesting sights were seen 
during our passage. 

Before leaving for Madioen that night the writer tried to impress 
upon the very kind Assistant Resident the need of watching the 
site of the Pithecanthropus and collecting each year, with the help 
of the natives, everything that the water may wash out. I left with 
the sad feeling that science was neglecting one of the most important 
sites and regions in the realm of investigation. The whole river 
should certainly be thoroughly surveyed and watched. A simple order 
of the colonial authorities would at least effect, with a very small 
expense if any, the saving each year of whatever the river may wash 
out,’ among which at any time there may appear specimens of much 
importance. But what is needed is a prolonged excavation under con- 
stant scientific supervision; excavation which here could be carried 
on at a relatively small expense, because of the cheapness of labor. 

The bones obtained by the writer from Trinil are in an excellent 
state of preservation. They are brown to black in color and fully min- 
eralized. Those that the writer had the good fortune to see and col- 
lect showed a number of interesting conditions. The first was that the 

"That fossil bones are washed out from the deposits each year, left on the 
ledges and collected by the natives who dispose of them for very small compen- 
sation to whoever is interested in them, has been attested to the writer by all 
with whom he came in contact, from the Assistant Resident to the natives; and 
not the slightest traces of any excavation by any one was seen. If there is any 
excavation by the natives, as Professor Dubois seems to believe, it surely was not 


specimens were all fragments, except in the case of smaller bones or 
individual teeth. The second was that the fragments as a rule were 
considerably water-worn of old, and that many of the specimens 
appeared water polished. And there was a great mixture of forms. 
All of which indicates, it seems, secondary deposition, in other words 
deposition of bones that already have been dissociated, carried, and 
washed more or less by the stream. Judging from this as well as 
from the results of the Dubois and Selenka excavations, it would 
seem that the fossiliferous deposits at Trinil would have to be 
regarded as essentially secondary deposits; though this would not 
have made an occasional inclusion of whole parts or even whole 
bodies impossible. 


While the writer was completing the above, a new publication on the 
Pithecanthropus came to hand in the form of an extended memoir 
on the remains by Dr. Hans Weinert, of Munich.’ The author, to 
whom we owe the final restoration and description of the skull of the 
Homo mousteriensis youth, has been given the opportunity by Dubois 
of studying the original specimens, more particularly the skullcap 
and the teeth, and of taking very detailed measurements, which he 
now makes available. 

For the many details of Dr. Weinert’s work, it will be necessary 
to consult the original. The main conclusions may, however, be sum- 
marized as follows: 

Much of the problem relating to the Pithecanthropus the author 
regards for the present, and before any new finds are forthcoming, 
as unsolvable. He is inclined to separate the lower jaw from the 
consideration of the rest of the specimens. It is quite possible that it 
may have belonged to the form Pithecanthropus but a decisive con- 
clusion on this point is not possible. 

As to the six Trinil specimens, the conclusion as to whether 
they all belonged to the same individual or form, also remains 
still open. As to the skullcap, this assumes morphologically a stem 
between the chimpanzee and the Neanderthal Man, and in such a way 
that it inclines nearer to the human side. As to the question whether 
the morphological sequence may also be extended to a phylogenetic 
one it may only be said (pp. 541-542) that the Trinil skullcap shows 

*Weinert, Hans, Pithecanthropus erectus. Z. Anat. u. Entwicklungsgesch., 
Vol. 87, pp. 522-524, I fig., 1928. 


nothing that would make such a sequence impossible. “ But with 
the recognition of the Trinil skullcap as a transitional form [to man] 
it is naturally by no means said that precisely from this Pithecan- 
thropus recent men have been developed.” It is more probable that 
the descendants of the Trinil Pithecanthropus have not reached the 
present time. Notwithstanding this, the Pithecanthropus phyloge- 
netically is nevertheless to be regarded as a connecting form; for he is 
a paleontological proof that such transitional beings really existed. 
Whether precisely the Javanese Pithecanthropus is a direct member 
of our genealogy, is somewhat secondary, and we must regard as 
overdrawn all theories which would base on him the conclusion 
that man originated in southeastern Asia. ‘ The chimpansoid juvenile 
skull of Taungs, together with the corresponding lower jaw of Pilt- 
down in southern England show us in connection with the Trinil 
remains of Java what space for the cradle of man is available. On 
the points of this triangle, which embraces almost all the Old World, 
we have fossil representatives of chimpansoid derivation, which were 
all suitable with a corresponding further evolution to reach the stem 
of the Hominidae..... But a single discovered fossil specimen can 
never seriously serve as a proof for the origin of a whole genus” 
(p. 542). 

The exact age of the remains is still somewhat uncertain. 

Concerning the question whether the femur and the skullcap belong 
to the same individual nothing decisive has as yet been brought 
forth, though such connection seems most probable. The placing 
of the Trinil femur between our anthropoid ancestors and the Ne- 
anderthaloid forms of man appears not impossible. 

Taking everything into consideration the indications are that the 
Pithecanthropus erectus was a being that well deserved the name of 
“a human transitional form from Java” which, not in single spect- 
mens but as a type, can show us the way followed in human evolution 
from the lower forms. 

“Just as the next lower relations of this form were still animals, 
while the next higher relation was undoubtedly man, so may the 
Pithecanthropus be the ‘missing link’ that Dubois was searching 
for and found. Should it be necessary, however, to substantiate the 
appurtenance of this intermediary form to one or the other side then 
it belongs undoubtedly to that of the human kind. The Pithecan- 
thropus erectus is a Homo whose unique position and its undisputed 
significance justify the generic name of ‘Ape Man’” (pp. 545-546). 


The following gives an abstract of Dr. Weinert’s measurements 
of the skullcap, contrasted with those of Dubois. 


Dubois (1924) Wienert ! (1928) 

Wengthmaxs deduced) | aaceeaerme eet 18.4 cm. 18.3 cm. 
Length max., as obtained on the damaged 

SPECIMEN i... Seo eereee seo eee 18.05 18.05 
icsencthstromropigyoneeecumcecsceeereeree ee 17.0 
Bead thie arn wsce ersvers ays erasaieretetens «rate faretnne ener ee Ter 13.0 
GrantalMindex tacsaceacns clos ieeeee ieee 71.2 71.04 
Calvarial height (height max. above the 

clabella=iniongline) eae me Aeee eee 6.1 6.1 
Basion-bregma height, estimated........... SAS 10.5 
Diam frontaliminsnoweerenee cee oe (8.7) 8.5 
Diam. frontal min., undamaged was _ prob- 

ably eMAR ak dee ee re 9.1 
External orbital facial breadth, estimated... 11.5 
Fronto-biorbital index (percental relation 

lastutwoORdiams:)) sappLnoxeeneererieeors 79.0 
Nearest approach of temporal lines, prob- 

Ba Tign haere cers ar acai Bee coae tala geeemccueee eae 8.5 
Sagittal arc-length: 

Frontalupartierasecshocmenea aie 10.0 10.0 

Parietal iacoeti.u Sectie sateen eee 9.0 9.1 

Occipitalupperepatteeneeee tee eee 4.5 4.6 

Occipital, whole, estimated............ me 10.3 
Hronto=parietalmind exe ni aerate eee 90.0 aioe 
Endocranial length max. : R. 15.5 15.4 

ee i533 15.3 

Breadth wimax (.c2 aus acta ca tannic 12.4 12.5 

TRG exes Ag CRS Ac Ae RLS ty Seer Ree ate 80.0 81.17 

Height max. (above the line of max. 

transverse diary) sneer are 5.8 Be 

Height (total, ob-ba), estimated....... Bie 10.0 
Cranial capacity, present conclusion, approx. goo cc. 1,000 ce. 
Brame welchta approxeeeeer ee reece cee syorak 870-920 gm. 

1 Many additional measurements are given by Weinert, loc. cit., pp. 485 et seq. 


While in Soerabaia, in 1925, the writer gave a lecture at which 
he called attention to the present conditions at Trinil. Attending the 
lecture among others was Dr. Heberlein, a Government physician. 
In September of the following year the Associated Press announced 


Dr. Eugéne Dubois. 

(usroyuayueg “J pure eyUeag “auUIPY Joypy) “petedoosip o19M (ysis) deoypnys ayy pue (4427) 
INWI9} dy} e2oyAM MoYs sorenbs sym OM} oY, “BALL “[MUTIT Jeo ‘ALL URMESUDG oY} UO ‘puy sndosyyuRdayytd 94} JO ApPRoO] OL 


Z ‘Id ‘€8 "10A 

(‘uewief YL “f ‘Wweprisey yreysissy 94} Aq eyop4rH 404 peydersojoyg) “$z6r ‘rautuns ‘sndoryyursayyg ay} JO ops 94] 






The skull of the Pithecanthropus, top view. (After Dubois, Proc. Acad. Sci. Amst., 1924. ) 
I I 


The skull of the Pithecanthropus from below. (After Dubois, 1924.) 

(‘bz61 ‘sioqnd Ja}yjy) “Mal apts ‘[[nys sndosyjuRs9y}q IL 



The endocranial cast of the Pithecanthropus. (After Dubois, 1924.) 

VOL. 83, PL. 8 


Nene ee mmm 

1. Mandibular fragment from Kedung Brobus. 

Pithecanthropus brain. (After McGregor.) 

(AOSIINI YY) “Yyjoo} sndosyjurosyy 


6 "Id ‘€8 “10A 


Femur of Pithecanthropus (cast) and a femur of a White (American), showing same 
exostosis. (Photographed to same scale. Hrdlicka ) 


Same as plate 10, rear view. 


that a discovery had been made at Java of a second Pithecanthropus ; 
and almost simultaneously I received at Washington the following 
letter : 

GENTENG Katt, No. 12, 
AUGUST 22, 1926 
Prof. Dr. Ales Hrdlicka, U. S. National Museum, Washington. 


During your stay in Netherlands, East India, last year I was delighted to be 
present at your lecture on evolution in the building of the Fellowship of Arts 
(“ Kunstkring””) at Soerabaia. You then spoke, too, about Trinil, where years 
ago the Pithecanthropus was found, and as I am in great trouble now what to 
do with a discovery or—better said—a finding I made there, I take the liberty 
to apply to you with the demand for advice. 

The question is to whom shall I best give away the object I found, and I 
should be very glad if you would be so kind as to answer me. I myself was 
geologist about two years before I, now thirty years ago, studied medical science. 
Since I was almost twenty years medical ofhcer in the Dutch colonial army and 
am now in civil service here, I always kept up as much as possible@swith my former 
palaeontological knowledge, nevertheless I remained only an amateur and by 
no means a savant in this branch of natural science and yet less in anthropology. 

On August Ist, thus now three weeks ago, I made an excursion to Trinil with 
Dr. de Graaf from Modjokerto and two gentlemen from the sugar factory 
Poerwodadi near Madioen. There we got a skull of a primate or man, something 
like the Pithecanthropus, though I am inclined to believe the shape is more man- 
like. The conservation is not very good; it is only a pouring off of the interior 
of a skull. The occiput is missing, but the two frontalia with the arcus super- 
ciliaris, the right and two-thirds of the left parietal, the upper part of the right 
and a little of the left temporal are very well poured off. The interior of the 
stone is typical porous lava. I suppose the proper bone of the cranium has been 
dissolved by the sulfuric acid of the lava. At any rate I think the object is very 

The question is now what to do with it. My first impulse was to send the 
remains to Holland. Once more I beg you to give me advice. I willingly shall 
wait for your answer. 

Yours sincerely, 
Govy’t Physician. 

This announcement created, naturally, great interest and was 
reported upon in the Daily Science News Bulletin of September 
29, 1926. A cable was sent to Java asking for photographs ; and early 
in December there arrived a set of very good prints which showed 
the specimen in various positions. 

At first sight these photographs made a strong impression. They 
appeared to show a skullcap of much the same type as that of the 



Pithecanthropus. The skull cavity seemed to be filled with a mass 
of vesicular volcanic-like matter. Anyone who knew the form of the 
old Trinil cranium could readily have taken the specimen for a second 
skull of that nature. 

However there seemed to be something amiss; and a view with 
a magnifying glass showed that the vesicular mass looked more like 
cancellous bone than stone. Mr. Gerrit S. Miller, Jr., whom I called to 
see the photographs, not only concurred in this but soon brought up 
an arm-bone of an Indian elephant, the head of which with its rim 
practically duplicated the Java specimen. An enlargement of one of 
the photographs to the size of the elephant’s humerus made the 
identity of the two certain. The same day, curiously, came a despatch 
to the effect that Professor Dubois, to whom another set of the photo- 
graphs was evidently sent at the same time, had made practically 
the same identification, referring the specimen to the extinct elephant 
(Stegodon) of Java. 

A report on the very interesting occurrence was presented by the 
writer at the December meeting of Section H, American Association 
for the Advancement of Science, and a brief note was published by 
him in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 1927, Vol. ro, 
No. 1, p. 162. Meanwhile, on December 18, 1926, Dr. Dubois made 
his report on the find before the Academy of Sciences, Amsterdam, 
and this was published in 1927 in the Proceedings of the Academy, 
Vol. 30, No. I, pp. 134-137, 3 figs. Later in 1927 there appeared 
finally the report of Dr. Mijsberg,’ who saw the original, and this 
bore out completely the above identifications. 

There is therefore no second Pithecanthropus; but though mis- 
taken, as many would have been by the very suggestive specimens, 
Dr. Heberlein deserves thanks for both his praiseworthy effort in 
obtaining the specimen and for making so freely available excellent 
photographs which permitted a prompt and true identification of the 


Berry, Epwarp W. The age of Pithecanthrcpus erectus. Science, Vol. 37, 
No. 950, pp. 418-420, 1913. 

Branco, Dr. W. Die menschenahnlichen Zahne aus dem Bohnerz der schwab- 
ischen Alb. Jahreschefte des Vereins fiir vaterlandische Naturkunde in 
Wurttemberg. Pithecanthropus, pp. 98-112. Stuttgart, 1808. 

* Mijsberg, W. A., Over het in 1926 te Trinil gevonden en ten onrechte als 
rest van het schedeldak van een praehistorischen mensch beschouwde fossiel. 
Geneesk. Tijdschrift Nederlandsch-Indié, 1927. 


GrESELER, W. Neuere Forschungen zum Pithecanthropusproblem. Forschungen 
und Fortschritte. Vol. 4, pp. 150-151, I fig. Berlin, 1928. 

Grecory, W. K., and HeEttMan, Miro. Further notes on the molars of Hesper- 
opithecus and of Pithecanthropus. Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., Vol. 48, 
Art. 13, pp. 509-526, 1923. 

HrpiicKa, A. The most ancient skeletal remains of man. Smithsonian Rep., 
Pp. 491-552, 41 pls., 12 figs., 1913. Also, 2d ed., Publ. 2300, Smithsonian 

Inst., 1916. 
MatrHew, W. D. Ape man of Java (Popular). Nat. Hist., New York, Dec., 

McGrecor, J. H. Recent studies on the skull and brain of Pithecanthropus. 
Nat. Hist., Vol. 25, No. 6, pp. 544-559, 1925. 

Miter, Gerrit S., Jr. Notes on the casts of the Pithecanthropus molars. Bull. 
Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., Vol. 48, Art. 13, pp. 527-530, 1923. 

The controversy over human “ missing links.” Smithsonian Rep. for 


Mo tttson, TH. Fossile Menschenaffen und Menschen. Grundziige der Geologie 
II, 1926. 

MorseEtur, E. Il precursore dell ’uomo (Pithecanthropus duboisii), 19 pp., 
Genoa, 1901. 

RAMstTROM, Martin. Der Java Trinil Fund, Pithecanthropos. Upsala Lakare- 
forenings forhandlingar, Vol. 26, Nos. 5-6, 37 pp., 192I. 

WEINERT, Hans. Pithecanthropus erectus. Z. Anat. und Entwicklungsgesch., 
Vol. 87, pp. 522-524, I fig., 1928. 


The name “ Eoanthropus Dawsoni” (Dawson’s Dawn-Man) was 
applied in 1912 (published in 1913) by Arthur Smith Woodward, 
then Keeper of the Department of Geology and Paleontology, British 
Museum (Natural History), to a number of fragments of a human- 
like skull, a portion of a lower jaw, and a separate canine tooth, found 
between about 1909 and 1912 in the old gravels of Piltdown, Sus- 
sex, England. To these were added two pieces of another skull 
and a molar tooth found by Dawson in 1915 among the stones raked 
oft a field two miles distant. All these specimens are preserved in the 
British Museum (Natural History), South Kensington (London). 


The original find was reported by Dawson and Woodward before 
the Geological Society, London, December 18, 1912, and published 
in the Quarterly Journal of the Society, March, 1913; the second find 
being reported by Woodward in the same periodical in 1917. The 
original publications covering the discoveries are as follows: 
Dawson, Charles, and Woodward, Arthur Smith, On the Discovery of a Palae- 

olithic Skull and Mandible in a Flint-Bearing Gravel overlying the Weal- 

den (Hastings Beds) at Piltdown, Fletching (Sussex). Quart. Journ. 
Geol. Soc., Vol. 60, pp. 117-151, 1913. 


, Supplementary Note on the Discovery of a Palaeolithic Human Skull 

and Mandible at Piltdown (Sussex). Ibid., Vol. 70, pp. 82-99, 1914. 

, On a Bone Implement from Piltdown (Sussex). Jbid., Vol. 71, Pt. 1, 
pp. 143-149, 1915. 

Woodward, Arthur Smith, The Piltdown Man. Geol. Mag., London, Decade V, 
Vol. 10, No. 592, pp. 433-434, 1913. 

, Ona Second Skull from the Piltdown Gravel. Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., 

Volo 73: Btei, pps t-lomonz. 

, Fourth Note on the Piltdown Gravel. /bid., 1917. 

, A Guide to the Fossil Remains of Man in the Department of Geology 

and Palaeontology, British Museum (Nat. Hist.), 1st ed. 1915, 3d ed., 


During the 15 years since the first report, a whole literature has 
grown up about these finds, due to their fragmentary condition, their 
insufficiency for definite conclusions, and the most disturbing ap- 
parent morphological incongruity of the specimens. It is another case 
where a desire to reach conclusions from insufficient and problematic 
material has led to a cloud of speculation and opinion, where sub- 
stantial definite deductions are impossible. 

As with the Pithecanthropus, so with the Eoanthropus, both in 
the discoveries and in subsequent history, there is much romance and 
psychology, besides prehistory. 

The preservation of the find is due essentially to Mr. Dawson ; and 
its history illustrates the usefulness and need, especially in the Old 
World, of scientific supervision of excavations. Mr. Dawson’s origi- 
nal statement is as follows (Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., 1913, Vol. 69, 
Pp: 117 ef seq:) : 

Several years ago I was walking along a farm road close to Piltdown Com- 
mon, Fletching (Sussex), when I noticed that the road had been mended with 
some peculiar brown flints not usual in the district. On inquiry I was aston- 
ished to learn that they were dug from a gravel bed on the farm, and shortly 
afterwards I visited the place, where two laborers were at work digging the 
gravel for small repairs to the roads. As this excavation was situated about 
four miles north of the limit where the occurrence of flints overlying the 
Wealden strata is recorded I was much interested and made a close examina- 
tion of the bed. I asked the workmen if they had found bones or other fossils 
there. As they did not appear to have noticed anything of the sort, I urged 
them to preserve anything that they might find. Upon one of my subsequent 
visits to the pit, one of the men handed to me a small portion of an unusually 
thick human parietal bone.’ I immediately made a search, but could find noth- 
ing more nor had the men noticed anything else. The bed is full of tabular 
pieces of ironstone closely resembling this piece of skull in color and thickness ; 
and, although I made many subsequent searches, I could not hear of any further 
find nor discover anything—in fact, the bed seemed to be quite unfossiliferous. 

The men are said to have found the whole or nearly whole brain portion 
of the skull, to have taken it for a petrified “ cocoanut,” and to have broken it. 


It was not until some years later, in the autumn of I9II, on a visit to the 
spot, that I picked up, among the rain-washed spoil heaps of the gravel pit, 
another and larger piece belonging to the frontal region of the same skull, 
including a portion of the left superciliary ridge. .... 

I took the bones to Dr. A. Smith Woodward at the British Museum (Natural 
History) for comparison and determination. He was immediately impressed 
with the importance of the discovery, and we decided to employ labor, and to 
make a systematic search among the spoil heaps and gravel as soon as the 
floods had abated, for the gravel pit is more or less under water during five 
or six months of the year. We accordingly gave up as much time as we could 
spare since last spring (1912) and completely turned over and sifted what 
spoil material remained; we also dug up and sifted such portions of the gravel 
as had been left undisturbed by the workmen. ... . 

At Piltdown the gravel bed occurs beneath a few inches of the surface soil 
and varies in thickness from 3 to 5 feet..... 

Portions of the bed are rather finely stratified, and the materials are usually 
cemented together by iron oxide, so that a pick is often needed to dislodge 
portions—more especially at one particular horizon near the base. It is in 
this last mentioned stratum that all the fossil bones and teeth discovered in 
situ by us have occurred. The stratum is easily distinguished in the appended 
photograph (pl. 5) by being of the darkest shade and just above the bedrock. 

The gravel is situated on a well-defined plateau of large area... . and 
lies about 80 feet above the level of the main stream of the Ouse. 

Since the deposition of the gravel, the river has cut through the 
plateau, both with its main stream and its principal branch, to this 

Considering the amount of material excavated and sifted by us, the specimens 
discovered were numerically small and localized. 

Apparently the whole or greater portion of the human skull had been shat- 
tered by the workmen, who had thrown away the pieces unnoticed. Of these 
we recovered from the spoil heaps as many fragments as possible. In a some- 
what deeper depression of the undisturbed gravel I found the right half of a 
human mandible. So far as I could judge, guiding myself by the position of 
a tree 3 or 4 yards away, the spot was identical with that upon which the 
men were at work when the first portion of the cranium was found several 
years ago. Dr. Woodward also dug up a small portion of the occipital bone 
of the skull from within a yard of the point where the jaw was discovered and 
at precisely the same level. The jaw appeared to have been broken at the 
symphysis and abraded, perhaps when it lay fixed in the gravel and before 
its complete deposition. The fragments of cranium show little or no sign of 
rolling or other abrasion, save an incision at the back of the parietal, probably 
caused by a workman’s pick. 

A small fragment of the skull has been weighed and tested by Mr. S. A. 
Woodhead, M. Sc., F. I. C., public analyst for East Sussex and Hove, and 
agricultural analyst for East Sussex. He reports that the specific gravity of 
the bone (powdered) is 2.115 (water at 5° C. as standard). No gelatine or 
organic matter is present. There is a large proportion of phosphates (originally 
present in the bone) and a considerable proportion of iron. Silica is absent. 


Besides the human remains, we found two small broken pieces of a molar 
tooth of a rather early Pliocene type of elephant, also a much-rolled cusp 
of a molar of Mastodon, portions of two teeth of Hippopotamus, and two molar 
teeth of a Pleistocene beaver. In the adjacent field to the west, on the surface 
close to the hedge dividing it from the gravel bed, we found portions of a red 
deer’s antler and the tooth of a Pleistocene horse. These may have been 
thrown away by the workmen, or may have been turned up by a plough which 
traversed the upper strata of the continuation of this gravel bed. Among the 
fragments of bone found in the spoil heaps occurred part of a deer’s meta- 
tarsal, split longitudinally. This bone bears upon its surface certain small cuts 
and scratches which appear to have been made by man. All the specimens are 
highly mineralized with iron oxide. .... 

Among the flints we found several undoubted flint implements, besides numer- 
ous Eoliths..... 

From the above Mr. Dawson believed himself justified in drawing 
the following conclusions: 

It is clear that this stratified gravel at Piltdown is of Pleistocene age, but 
that it contains in its lowest stratum animal remains derived from some de- 
stroyed Pliocene deposit probably situated not far away and consisting of 
worn and broken fragments. These were mixed with fragments of early 
Pleistocene mammalia in a better state of preservation, and both forms were 
associated with the human skull and mandible, which show no more wear and 
tear than they might have received in situ. Associated with these animal 
remains are Eoliths, both in a rolled and an unrolled condition; the former are 
doubtless derived from an older drift, and the latter in their present form are 
of the age of the existing deposit. In the same bed, in only a very slightly 
higher stratum, occurred a flint implement, the workmanship of which resem- 
bles that of implements found at Chelles, and among the spoil heaps were 
found others of a similar, though perhaps earlier, stage. 

From these facts it appears probable that the skull and mandible cannot 
safely be described as being of earlier date than the first half of the Pleisto- 
cene (or Glacial) epoch. The individual probably lived during a warm cycle 
of that age. 


In 1915, before the same Geological Society, London, Mr. Dawson 
and Dr. Woodward report “On a bone implement from Piltdown.” * 
It was found during the excavations of 1914, 

. about a foot below the surface, in dark vegetable soil, beneath the hedge 
which bounds the gravel-pit, and within three or four feet of the spoil-heap 
whence we obtained the right parietal bone of the human skull. On being 
washed away, the soil left not the slightest stain on the specimen, which was 
covered with firmly-adherent pale-yellow sandy clay, closely similar to that 
of the flint-bearing layer at the bottom of the gravel. The bone, therefore, 
cannot have lain buried in the soil for any long period, and was almost cer- 
tainly thrown there by the workmen with the other useless débris when they 

* Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., Vol. 71, pp. 144-149, 1 pl., 1 fig., 1915. 


were digging gravel from the adjacent hole. It is much mineralized with oxide 
of iron, at least on the surface, and it agrees in appearance with some small 
fragments of bone which we found actually in place in the clay below the 
gravel. Its surface is yellowish brown, the cut facets being slightly darker than 
the rest; but the bony tissue within is yellowish or creamy white, and the whole 
is much less darkly stained than the bones from the gravel immediately above. 
As it lay in the rock it was broken across at its middle, and the two broken 
faces are stained like the rest of the bone; at its thinner end it was accidentally 
shattered by our workman’s pick. 

The implement is a stout and nearly straight narrow plate of bone, 41 cm. 
long and varying from 9 cm. to Io cm. in width, with the thicker end artificially 
pointed or keeled, the thinner end artificially rounded. 

The bone is evidently a portion of a femur of a large proboscidean. 

In 1917, finally, Dr. Woodward reports to the Geological Society 
the find by Mr. Dawson, on a field two miles distant from the original 
discovery, of two fragments of a second fossil skull and an additional 
molar. The main part of the report reads as follows: ’* 

The wide distribution of the Piltdown gravel, as determined by its charac- 
teristic brown flints, was shown by Mr. Dawson in his map of 1912. It could 
easily be traced in the ploughed fields of the district; but, notwithstanding the 
most careful and persistent search, it yielded no fossils, except at the original 
locality, until the winter of 1914-15. One large field, about two miles from the 
Piltdown pit, had especially attracted Mr. Dawson’s attention, and he and I 
examined it several times without success during the spring and autumn of 
1914. When, however, in the course of farming, the stones had been raked off 
the ground and brought together into heaps, Mr. Dawson was able to search 
the material more satisfactorily; and early in 1915 he was so fortunate as to 
find here two well-fossilized pieces of human skull and a molar tooth, which he 
immediately recognized as belonging to at least one more individual of 
Eoanthropus dawsoni. Shortly afterwards, in the same gravel, a friend met 
with part of the lower molar of an indeterminable species of rhinoceros, as 
highly mineralized as the specimens previously found at Piltdown itself. 

The most important fragment of human skull is part of the supraorbital region 
of a right frontal bone adjacent to the middle line. It is in exactly the same 
mineralized condition as the original skull of Eoanthropus, and deeply stained 
with iron-oxide. It is also similarly thickened, exhibiting the characteristic very 
fine diploe with comparatively thin outer and inner tables of dense bone. ... . 

The second fragment of human skull is the middle part of an occipital bone, 
which is also well fossilized, but seems to have been weathered since it was 
derived from the gravel. Though still stout, it is thinner than the corresponding 
bone of Eoanthropus from Piltdown, and differs from the latter in at least one 
important respect..... 

The tooth, discovered by Mr. Dawson in the same locality as the two pieces 
of bone, is a left first lower molar agreeing very closely with that of the original 
specimen of Eoanthropus dawsoni, but more obliquely worn by mastication. 
It is equally well fossilized, and stained brown with oxide of iron in the usual 

* Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., Vol. 73, Pt. I, p. 3, 1917. 



The specimens—The remains attributed to the Eoanthropus con- 
sist of two lots, the first comprising nine fragments of a skull (joined 
now into four pieces), a pair of nasal bones, a portion of a lower 
jaw, and a canine; the second, two fragments of another skull and 
presumably a loose molar. 

Locality, dates and discoverers—The initial remains of the first 
group were unearthed from the ancient river gravels of the Ouse 
river, at Piltdown, near Fletching, in the weald of Sussex, between 
1909 (approximately) and 1913, by laborers, but discovered, with 
additional finds, by Charles Dawson, A. Smith Woodward and 
P. Teilhard. The second lot is believed to have been found, in 1915, 
among the surface rakings of a field two miles from the site of the 
earlier discovery, by Dawson; it was not reported until 1917 by 
Woodward, on the basis of oral information given by Dawson. 

Main circumstances of discovery.—The earlier remains “ were 
first found by workmen when digging the gravel for use on roads, 
and among them was the human skull which they broke up and 
threw away. One fragment was fortunately preserved and given to 
Mr. Dawson, who recognized its importance and at once began a 
search for the remainder of the specimen. Enough pieces were re- 
covered to show the essential peculiarities of the skull. Part of the 
lower jaw and the lower canine tooth were eventually found in the 
adjacent undisturbed gravel, and some implements of human work- 
manship and fragmentary remains of animals were also met with.” * 

Associations —With the earlier remains were found worn fossils 
evidently washed out of Pliocene formations (mastodon, stegodon, 
rhinoceros) ; fossils of probably early Pleistocene age (hippopotamus, 
beaver, elk) ; and primitive stone implements, with one large crude 
tool of a bone of an elephant. 

Significance.—The discoverers and the English anthropologists in 
general associate the first group of finds as those of one individual, 
the loose molar and possibly the parts of the second skull to another, 
and all the specimens as belonging to one early form of man, the 

From the same gravels came also waterworn “ eoliths,” that may 
have been washed out from an even older formation; and rare flints 
with ‘“ obvious signs of human workmanship’”’* and representing a 
very old type of paleolithic implements. 


*Woodward, Arthur Smith, A Guide to the Fossil Remains of Man, etc., 
p. 9, ef seq. British Museum (Nat. Hist.), London, 1915. 
? Idem. 


Geological age.—Taking all the circumstances of the find into con- 
sideration, Dr. Woodward decided that, “it appeared probable that 
the skull and mandible cannot safely be described as being of earlier 
date than the first half of the Pleistocene Epoch. The individual 
probably lived during a warm cycle in that age.” (Quart. Journ. 
Geol. Soc., p. 123, 1913). In 1922, in his “ Guide to the Fossil Remains 
of Man,” etc., 3rd ed., pp. 10-11, Dr. Woodward says: “ So far as can 
be judged from present evidence, it is therefore reasonable to suppose 
that Piltdown man dates back to the beginning of the Pleistocene 
period.” The latter is about the generally accepted opinion today. 


Descriptions of the various skeletal parts of the Piltdown finds, 
equally as excellent as the rest of his reports, are given in the original 
communications, already quoted, by Dr. Woodward. This author 
deserves the warm thanks of every anthropologist for, on the one 
hand, his highly able and restrained reports and studies, supple- 
mented with beautiful illustrations ; and on the other for the extended 
painstaking work in the Piltdown gravels, which he has carried on 
since 1912, first jointly with Dawson and, since Dawson’s death, alone, 
and which he still pursues. The essentials of his observations will 
be incorporated in the following paragraphs. 


From the nine fragments of the cranium together with the portion 
of the lower jaw and the loose canine, a number of the most promi- 
nent students of the remains have attempted with infinite pains a 
reconstruction of the whole skull. The principal reconstructions are 
those of Woodward,’ Elliot Smith with J. I. Hunter and J. Beattie,’ 
Keith,’ and McGregor.” These reconstructions differ somewhat in 
size and in details, but all show certain characteristics in common. 
They must be considered together with the originals; but it is the 
originals which demand first attention. The following notes combine 
the essential data on the specimens published by Dr. Woodward and 
other workers, with the writer’s observations on the originals. 

‘ Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., Vol. 69, p. 141, pl. XVIII, 1913. This reconstruction 
reminds one much of that of the skull of the Le Moustier youth, q. v. 

* Nature, 1922, p. 726. Also Elliot Smith, The Evolution of Man, 2d ed., 
p. 74 et seq., 1927. 

* The Antiquity of Man, II, p. 515 et seqg., 1925. 

*Tilustrations in publications of Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., N. Y. 


Preservation.—The fragments are of dark red ferruginous color, 
and markedly mineralized. They are not deformed in any way, and 
apparently but little worn. 

Massiveness—Probably the most striking character of the bones 
of the skull (exclusive of the lower jaw), is their massiveness. The 
bones measure 8 to 12 mm. in thickness (Keith, Antiquity of Man, 
1925, 518, 528), to 20 mm. at the internal occipital protuberance 
(Woodward, Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., 1913, p. 124). This is just 
about twice the thickness of an average modern white skull. This 
thickness together with the depth of the grooves of the meningeal 
vessels and the unusual density (small spaces of the diploe) suggest 
strongly an abnormal condition, such as is met with in some of the 
Florida and other aboriginal skulls in America (Hrdli¢ka), though no 
disease is detectable microscopically (Shattock, Proc. Inst., Med. 
Cong:, Lond:, 1915): 

Age.—The skull is plainly that of an adult of somewhat advanced 
age, ‘‘ The median parietal (sagittal) suture is completely obliterated ; 
but the lambdoid suture is open” (Woodward, Quart. Journ. Geol. 
Soc., 1913, p. 128; Keith, Antiquity of Man, 1927, 545). Under 
normal present conditions, excluding a premature closure of the sagit- 
tal suture, the age of an individual with a complete obliteration of this 
suture could be estimated at 50 years and might be well over that. 
But there are exceptions (¢.g., in the Eskimo), particularly if the 
skull was not fully normal, as seems here to be indicated by the thick- 
ness of the bones; so that all that it is safe to say is that the skull 
belonged to an adult of probably over 30 years of age. 

Sex—The sum of the indications, it is generally recognized, are 
that the skull is that of a female. 

Form—The fragments of the skull (pl. 13), aside from their 
thickness, relative density of the cancellous bone, and a strong mark 
of attachment of the temporal muscle, offer but little that is extraor- 
dinary. The temporal fragment shows a moderate-sized mastoid, 
and a small but very distinct styloid. 

The several reconstructions of the skull differ in certain respects. 
All these, however, show it to have been rather above medium in 
breadth (not far from the lower limits of brachycephaly). The 
height in the Smith Woodward original reconstruction is somewhat 
low, in those of Keith and Elliot Smith about or near the modern 

In the opinion of Dr. Woodward (Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., 1913, 
127), a detailed examination of the bones of the skull, as far as pre- 
served, “ proves the typically human character of nearly all the features 


they exhibit.” For Keith, “except for the thickness of the skull 
bones, the head was shaped and balanced as in us” (Antiquity of 
Man, 1925, 570, 578, 595). It is a skull that “in its general con- 
formation does not differ materially from human skulls of the modern 
type” (ibid., 602). But for Elliott Smith (Evolution of Man, 1927, 
74 et seq.) the skull, as reconstructed by him and his associates, 
exhibits a number of primitive characters. 

The writer’s opinion, after repeated study of the originals, is that 
while the fragments show a few peculiarities, these are not of a 
phylogenetically decisive nature, and seemingly could all be duplicated 
in the skulls of still living races. 

Size.—The capacity of the skull has been estimated by the different 
authors who attempted its reconstruction, as follows: 


Smiths vioodward/s original estimates... sore celeedeeele ceeelsines os lee 1,070 
Barlow’s brain cast, first Smith Woodward reconstruction.......... 1,200 
Second Smith Woodward» reconstruction: -.46 2. eee oeceen ee eee. 1,300 
MES TTT Gee S THULE Tepe a ole oy cece toilor sues tes So eoace: Sele Gc ia ae tose ore Suche avons: oh picliotcrcovarei ves ones 1,200 
RSTn perc tetenee ners aseve ated recieve arta iahe eer aee cee tetra onmie ails aver ais ahe eiouwtayprenars leowhovotng 1,400 

If the skull was that of a female, as is most probable, its mean 


ness of the specimen, would indicate an internal capacity of about 
1,200) GC, 

Other measurements—The several reconstructions of the skull 
made possible approximate measurements, the most important of 
which are given here: 

approximate diameter , after reduction for the extra thick- 

Woodward, A. S.2 Keith? 
cm, Cis 
Perro tinmttiascueeeecaeiseacss oo eiamier aiciese cobs re nt) eye ieee 19.0 19.4 
reac eiupsia xem ay nieuws cys tals ate 2 dag eRe clavate ote chattel ete ate 15.0 15.0 
Grain aH Ose) tte tccrere rece rete cide Sider ee alan Maree argo 78-79 78-79 
Height : 
PRASIOM DHEA) . Vtatsvsjaveta)o.« 4 ee lavsierscopalcrs sisceaslemars ce 13.0 
IBAStOl=ventexaleticntncsenn a clcniicera rete ieieaeoiecerte 13.0 es 
ENTITA CH MRE Ee ates tein cee anne aoe ae eke aieiays sian mere 
Glabellasintoneline: vertexsa scones cakes eaecnt ss 9.0 
Glabella-inion, line; ‘bregma J. sacs je. cetece dows 8.4 
Nearest approach of upper temporal line to median line. 3.6 

Nearest approach of lower temporal line to median line. 4.6 

*See Relation of the size of the head and skull to capacity in the two sexes. 
Amer. Journ. Phys. Anthrop., Vol. 8, pp. 249-250, 1925. 

* Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., Vol. 69, p. 130, 1913. 

* Antiquity of Man, pp. 528 et seq., 576-577, 589-591, 595, 600, 1925. 


The various determinations show that: 

1. The skull, taken as female, was in size above rather than below 
the present average of female crania ; 

2. The skull cavity and hence the size of the brain were about the 
average of the ordinary white females of today; 

3. The vault of the skull was not low as in all the other known 
early forms of man. 

In addition it is certain that the forehead of this skull was well 
arched and filled out; the parietal, temporal, and occipital regions 
were fashioned practically as they are in modern skulls (Keith, p. 
556) ; the supraorbital ridges were very moderate and did not form a 
connected arch; there were no occipital or other crests; the glenoid 
fossa and the mastoids were well developed. 

In general this skull, though it may show some secondary inferi- 
orities, if it were not for the exceedingly primitive lower jaw and 
canine tooth found near it, would inevitably have to be classed among 
those of modern man. 

The nasal bones—These bones, together with a portion of a 
turbinal, were found in 1913 by Dr. Woodward, as mentioned above.’ 
They are extraordinarily thick, corresponding in this respect to the 
bones of the skull. They are separate (no ossification of suture), 
and almost perfectly preserved; the left nasal being complete, the 
right but slightly defective. Their measurements are thus given by 
Dr. Woodward :” 


Width of naturally apposed nasals at the upper end................000eeeee 13 
Width of naturally apposed nasals at the lower end (about)................ 15 
enethyotsthes median ysuturer s-ceerc veers ei) erkekler ta 14 
eneth ob the masalss- miaxc.oc ese eeicies a tre oles ree oie Velie eeetere eter tae 18 
Length of the upper border of the left\nasal. ... 2... 6.102425 aes oe oesm es osm 7 
enethot the upper border or themiohtmiasally. ati elseiae ioral isociierer tet 10 
Length of the lower border of the left masala. «<2. .caemee © = cient 10 
Length of the lower border of the right nasal (about)................5565 II 

Comparisons prove, according to Dr. Woodward, that “ these nasal 
bones resemble those of the existing Melanesian and African races, 
rather than those of the Eurasian type” (p. 87). Nevertheless similar 
nasals, except as to the thickness, may be found also in the yellow- 
brown people and even in whites (Hrdlitka). The turbinated “is 
unusually thick”? (Smith Woodward). There is every indication 
that the nasals as well as the turbinated belong to the skull and were 

? Original report in Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., Vol. 70, p. 85, 1914. 
* Tbid., p. 87. 


in all probability still joined with it when it was originally found by 
the laborers. They strengthen the suspicion that the skull may be not 
fully normal (Hrdlicka). 


All that can be known about the brain of the Piltdown skull is 
what is shown by the internal surface of the several fragments ; and, 

50 o 

Gee ie a eee eh Mee ae ee i100 

-180 "50 ay 

ES 2S a Sa 


a cd one erence arenes ews nearer eto 

160 150 100 



Fic. 8.—Profile drawing of the brain cast taken from the reconstruction of 
the Piltdown skull by Arthur Keith. It is represented half size and set within a 
standard frame of lines which permits direct comparison between the various 
drawings given here. The positions of the sutures between the containing 
bones are indicated. The missing parts are stippled. (After Keith, Antiquity of 
Man, 1925.) 

as there is but a portion of the side of the front and no base, not to 
mention other large defects, it is plain that the obtainable information 
must be quite meagre. If notwithstanding this we find in the litera- 
ture on the subject some far-reaching statements, these cannot be 
taken for much more than opinions; and with the defects of the 
original it is no wonder that some of these opinions, even by the best 
men, differ widely. 

Thus, Professor G. Elliot Smith, one of the foremost living 
students of the brain, in his “ Preliminary Report on the Cranial 


Cast,’ * says: “ Taking all its features into consideration, we must 
regard this as being the most primitive and most simian human brain 
so far recorded.” In his 1927 treatise on the ‘‘ Evolution of Man” 
(pp. 126-127) Professor Smith is much less explicit, but mentions a 
number of details in which he believes the brain was inferior, and it 
is plain that he still regards it much as he did before. 

On the other hand, Sir Arthur Keith, unquestionably one of the 
foremost living anatomists of the present time, concludes, after an 
at least equally painstaking study of the originals and their casts, 
that so far as the more basal parts are concerned, “ we have seen no 
feature of the Piltdown brain to which we can apply with any cer- 
tainty the term of primitive or simian; all the characters we have 
encountered are not very unlike those seen in modern skulls and 
brains” (p. 620); and “it appears, even in its convolutionary ar- 
rangement, to fall well within the limits of variation seen in modern 
human brains” (p. 621). “In the development of the occipital poles 
of the brain, this early Pleistocene man shows, not a primitive feature, 
but one which must be regarded as evidence of a fairly high degree 
of specialization”? (p. 627). And finally (p. 634): “ Thus an ex- 
amination of the brain cast confirms the conclusion reached from an 
examination of the skull, namely, that a mistake was made in the iden- 
tification of the parts lying in the middle line which greatly diminished 
the real size of the brain, and these mistakes continue to be made. .... 
The asymmetry of the two sides has largely disappeared. The ar- 
rangement of the meningeal vessels and of the convolutions of the 
left side are seen to harmonize with those of the right. At the same 
time the large areas of the brain, representing the higher association 
centres, are restored, and we obtain a brain primitive in some respects, 
it is true, but in all its characters directly comparable with that of 
modern man.” 


The lower jaw, as stated, was found personally by Dawson, appar- 
ently close to the spot where the skull was discovered, in “a somewhat 
deeper depression of the undisturbed gravel”? (Quart. Journ. Geol. 
Soc., 1913, p. 121). “ The jaw appeared to have been broken at the 
symphysis and abraded perhaps where it lay fixed in the gravel and 
before its complete deposition. The fragments of the cranium show 
little or no signs of rolling or other abrasion’ (ibid.). 

* Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., Vol. 60, p. 147, 1913. 
* Antiquity of Man, 1925. 

It is this jaw, together with the subsequently found canine, that 
has become the great “ bone of contention” in the case. The reason 

If ‘ 
; wi ee eye 

SSS g 



Fic. 9.—Eoanthropus dawson Smi 

th Woodward. Pleistocene gravel, near 
Piltdown Common, Fletching, Sussex, 
Mag., 1913, pl. 15.) 

England. (After Smith Woodward, Geol. 

is that, as tersely stated by Dr. Woodward,’ “while the Piltdown 
skull is thus completely human, the half of the lower jaw, so far as 

preserved, is almost precisely that of an ape.” And in another place ° 

1A Guide to the Fossil Remains of Man, etc., p. 15, 1915. 
? Geol. Mag., Vol. 10, pp. 433-434, 1913. 


Dr. Woodward expresses the uncertainty thus created: “ It may next 
be questioned whether this ape-like mandible belongs to the skull. 
We can only state that its molar teeth are typically human, its muscle- 
markings are such as might be expected, and it was found in the 
gravel near to the skull. The probabilities are therefore in favour of 
its natural association. If so, it is reasonable to suppose that the 
skull will prove to be that of a very primitive type, not that of a 
highly civilized man.” 

No such jaw, or even an approach to it, has ever before or since 
been found with such a skull. The two apparently do not belong to 
the same being nor even to the same species of beings. In other early 
remains, especially in one of the Spy skulls, at La Quina, and in the 
La Ferrassie specimens, it was the jaw rather than the skull that 
showed a form advancing towards the modern. The probabilities of 
the discovery speak apparently all for, the morphological features of 
the specimens all against, an organic association of the skull with the 

The inevitable results of this disharmony were, from the start, 
expressions of dissenting opinions, which culminated when in 1915 
and again in 1918, after a serious study of the cast of the fragment, . 
Gerrit S. Miller, Jr., identified the jaw as that of Pan vetus, a fossil 

In 1917 Dr. Woodward announced the discovery of parts of the 
second skull, together with a loose molar, both evidently connecting 
with the first find, the skull! bones with the skull, the tooth with the 
jaw, which served but to accentuate the uncertainties. 

In 1921, thanks to Dr. Woodward, the writer was given an oppor- 
tunity, in London, to study the Piltdown originals ; the same privilege 
was again extended 1n 1923, when once more the originals, preserved 
in the safe of the Department of Geology and Paleontology of the 
British Museum (Natural History), were measured and examined ; 
and they were seen again in 1925. The results of the 1921-23 exami- 
nations were published in several articles in the American Journal of 
Physical Anthropology, and in view of the importance of the case. 

*The Jaw of the Piltdown Man. Smithsonian Misc. Coll., Vol. 65, No. 12, 
31 pp., 5 pls., and annotated bibliography of the subject up to that time, 1915; 
and The Piltdown Jaw, Amer. Journ. Phys. Anthrop., Vol. 1, 4 pls., with anno- 
tated bibliography of over 120 titles by more than 50 authors, 1918. 

* Hrdlicka, A., The Piltdown Jaw. Amer. Journ. Phys. Anthrop., Vol. 5, pp. 
337-347, 1925. Dimensions of the First and Second Molars, with their Bearing on 
the Piltdown Jaw and on Man’s Phylogeny; ibid., Vol. 6, pp. 195-216, 1923; and 
Variation in the Dimension of Lower Molars in Man and Anthropoid Apes; 
ibid., pp. 423-438. 


the essential parts of these are here reproduced. The results of the 
1925 examination call for practically no modification of the earlier 

The handling of the original bone impressed one once more with the great 
difference that exists between the study of a cast however well made and that 
of the original. It is very probable that some of the statements made about the 
jaw and the teeth and some of the conclusions arrived at by some authors, 
would not have been made had they been able to study the jaw itself. 

The first strong impression which the specimen conveys is that of normality, 
shapeliness and relative gracility of build rather than massiveness. When, after 
studying the specimen for a good part of two days, the observer took in hand 
the thick Piltdown skull, there was a strong feeling of incongruity and lack of 
relationship, and this feeling only grew on further study. As a rule there exists 
a marked correlation between the massivity of the skull—particularly if as in 
this case the upper facial parts were involved in the same—and the lower jaw. 
A finely chiselled mandible of medium or sub-medium strength belongs as a rule 
to a skull that is characterized in the same way, and vice versa. To connect the 
shapely, wholly normal Piltdown jaw with the gross, heavy Piltdown skull into 
the same individual, seems very difficult. After prolonged handling of both the 
jaw and the skull there remained in the writer a strong impression that the two 
may not belong together, or that if they do the case is totally exceptional. 

The next important question in connection with the jaw was whether or not 
it is human. All possible pains were taken to determine this point, regardless 
both of the skull and of previously expressed opinions. The details of this study 
will follow. But it may as well be said at once that all the results of the study 
point to the specimen being very early human or that of an advanced human 
precursor, and not anthropoid. 

Other questions were whether the canine tooth found near the jaw belonged 
to it or not; and if it did not whether it could have belonged perhaps to the 
upper jaw of the same being or a being of the same variety. Upon these ques- 
tions no absolute certainty could be reached; but the indications are that the 
jaw possessed a relatively large canine, and a further study of the tooth admits 
of the possibility that it belonged not merely to the same individual, but that 
after all it may be the lower right canine of the jaw. Mr. Miller, who in the 
writer’s knowledge subjected the available data as well as the casts to a most 
careful study,’ was at a disadvantage due to the impossibility of studying the 


The Jaw: The specimen is in a very good state of preservation. Besides the 
well-known lack of condyle and the alveolar arch anterior to the first molar, 
there is no other damage except a slight abrasion of the middle portion of the 
posterior border of the ramus. 

The specimen is not heavy in weight nor massive in structure; it is marked 
in fact by relatively moderate build, strikingly at odds with both the first and 
second Piltdown skulls which in all their parts are decidedly thick. There is no 
perceptible correspondence between the jaw and the skulls. 

*See Miller, G. S., The Piltdown Jaw. Amer. Journ. Phys. Anthrop., Vol. 1, 
No. 1, 1918. 



The ascending ramus gives the writer the following measurements: Height 
along the middle to lowest point of notch, 6.1 cm.;* minimum breadth (allowing 
for slight damage of the posterior border), 4.25 cm. The angle is close to 112°. 
These measurements show little that could be regarded as biologically distinctive 
and could be duplicated in man as well as in some chimpanzees. 

The ramus, finely formed, is of only moderate strength. Both the processes, 
coronoid and condyloid (the condyle itself is lost), were of about medium human 
development and quite human in form. This is particularly true of the coronoid, 
which is sharper and pointing somewhat more forward than it generally is in 
the chimpanzee. 

The notch between the condyloid and coronoid processes is broad and typi- 
cally human in form; in chimpanzees it is as a rule less broad, its posterior por- 
tion predominates in length and it has lesser inclination than the anterior part. 

Features of special interest are the neck of the condyle and the posterior 
border of the ramus. The neck of the condyle is rather short and decidedly more 
slender than it is in chimpanzees, and even in most male modern human jaws. 
Below the neck the posterior border is rather sharp and towards the angle 
shows slight inversion rather than eversion, as not seldom in chimpanzees where 
the internal pterygoid muscles predominate in “ pull” over that of the masseter 
externally; the same condition may also be met in some humans where the 
masseters were not well developed. 

That the masseters in the Piltdown specimen were not strongly developed is 
shown by the smoothness of the outer surface of the angle portion of the jaw 
which is free of insertion ridges or irregularities. Such a condition is occa- 
sionally approached in chimpanzees though there are usually plain indications 
of the attachment of the muscle; it is clearly approached in some human jaws. 
The internal pterygoid muscle, attached to the internal surface of the ramus 
between the mylohyoid groove and the angle of the bone, and serving essentially 
for protrusion, retraction and in lateral movements of the jaw, in the chimpanzees 
as a rule predominates in strength and hence in marks of attachment over the 
masseter, and it does so also in a certain proportion of humans; but in many 
humans the extent of the attachment of the pterygoid, even though it may reach 
the mylohyoid groove is more or less reduced, and in not a few it is the masseter 
which predominates in strength producing a more or less marked eversion of 
the lower border of the bone at the angle. In the Piltdown jaw the attachment 
of the internal pterygoid, while reaching as far as the mylohyoid groove, left 
only faint traces of its attachments, less even than in many present day human 
jaws. Nevertheless, the masseter was evidently even weaker, due to which fact 
the border at the angle is slightly inverted as already mentioned. 

The external surface of the ramus in the Piltdown jaw shows a marked and 
hitherto unmentioned depression produced by the body of the masseter. The 
depression begins superiorly just below the condyle and proceeds unevenly 
forwards and downwards to end in a large shallow concavity over the lower third 
of the ramus anterior to its middle. Of a similar depression there is found in 
the grown chimpanzees at most only the anterior portion. In human subjects 
this fossa is also frequently more or less deficient and irregular; nevertheless, 

* The condyle, as is well known, is missing; with the condyle and measured in 
the usual way (see A. Hrdlicka, Anthropometry, Wistar Inst., Phila., 1921), 
the height of the ascending ramus would be about 7.0 cm. or slightly over. 


there is on the whole a closer approach to it than in the chimpanzees; and in 
one of the skulls seen at the British Museum (Australian, No. 1068-4), as well 
as in several jaws at the U. S. National Museum, there is a very close approach 
to the condition such as seen in the Piltdown mandible. 

The anterior border of the ramus is somewhat thicker and duller than it is 
in an average modern human jaw, especially in that of a cultured white man. 
It is near to the average border in a chimpanzee; but it is a feature of little 
diagnostic value, being an expression of strength and not derivation. An equally 
thick border may be found in some human jaws, while in some chimpanzees as in 
most modern humans the edge is thinner. 

Internally the upper portion of the ramus shows nothing especially charac- 
teristic. The impression for the external pterygoid is faint, that for the tem- 
poralis well marked but of moderate extent. The ridges and depressions, and 
the location of the mandibular foramen with the hyoid groove, present nothing 
that is not fairly common in both man and the chimpanzees. 

Taking the ascending ramus as a whole, the conclusion is inevitable that it 
belonged to an individual in whom all the muscles of mastication (internal 
pterygoid, masseter, external pterygoid as well as temporal) were of only mod- 
erate development and activity for a being of the size indicated by the jaw. 
They were decidedly less than those of actual male chimpanzees, and possibly 
even a trace less than the average in the females of this form. On the whole 
the ramus, while bearing some resemblance to that of a chimpanzee in the slight 
inversion of its posterior border about the angle and the thickness of the anterior 
border, shows a closer approach to the human type than to that of the chimpanzee. 

The horizontal part or body of the jaw —The horizontal ramus of the Pilt- 
down jaw, broken off superiorly in front of the first molar and inferiorly near 
the symphysis, shows a relatively light structure, comparable much more to a 
stronger modern human jaw than to that of a chimpanzee. The break shows 
that the ramus possesses a large cavity (which may have been partly filled by 
cancellous tissue) that reached without much diminution clear to and evidently 
through the chin. This condition differs markedly from that of the jaws of chim- 
panzees, in which the bone is thicker and the internal cavity smaller, particularly 
at the chin which is filled with sparse and dense cancellous tissue as hard as the 
compact walls outside of it, and in which the formation by natural means of a 
similar cavity as seen in the Piltdown specimen seems impossible. This is one 
more and an important feature, indicating a relatively light use of the jaw, less 
than in any known chimpanzees. 

The body appears relatively somewhat low, which in man would indicate a 
female rather than a male individual; but it could also be a primitive feature. 
Low bodied jaws are a general feature in the chimpanzees. The vertical height 
of the body in the Piltdown jaw at the first septum anterior to the first molar, 
is 3.0 cm.; at the second septum (between first and second molars), 2.9 cm.; 
and at the third septum (between second and third molars), 3.0 cm. In a series 
of male chimpanzees in the U. S. National Museum the height at the septum 
between the second and third molars on the right side measures respectively 
2.75, 2.8, 2.4, 2.8, 2.65, 2.9, 2.8, 2.85, 2.65, and 2.9 cm. None of the chimpanzee 
jaws, although most of them are males and larger than the Piltdown specimen, 
measure even as much as it does in the height of the body. 


The minimum thickness of the body (at first molar) of the Piltdown jaw is 
1.45 cm. This is above the average of both human and chimpanzee jaws, but is 
occasionally equalled and even exceeded in both. There is therefore nothing 
distinctive in this respect. 

The external surface of the body shows the usual somewhat indistinct oblique 
line. There is nothing characteristic in it for either man or chimpanzee. This 
external surface shows also, however, an important feature that has so far 
failed to receive due attention. This is a basal ridge forming a boundary between 
the external surface proper of the bone, and the inferior flattening that gradually 
enlarging proceeds under the fore part of the jaw where it forms a shelf such 
as exists more or less in ape and other jaws that have a negative chin. The 
ridge above this shelf is not found in modern man except rudimentarily. It is 
already rather rudimentary in the Mauer jaw. It is well marked in the Pilt- 
down jaw, and it is occasionally fairly well marked in an adult chimpanzee. 
It is caused by the shelf but even more so by the large and long canine eminence 
due to a large canine. It does not exist, or exists only in traces wherever the 
canine tooth is small as in the chimpanzee females and the young, or in modern 
man. Its presence in the Piltdown jaw seems a very strong indication that the 
jaw possessed a relatively large canine tooth; and this, with other considera- 
tions, increases the probability that the Piltdown canine belonged to the jaw, 
or at least to the same or a like skeleton. 

The development of the sub-mentoneal shelf in the Piltdown jaw equals that 
of most chimpanzees—except, as already mentioned, in the solidity of the struc- 
ture which in this case was plainly less than in any of the apes. A shelf of this 
nature is found in none of the ancient human jaws, though they all show traces 
of it. Traces of it may in fact be detected even in some modern jaws of man. 
In this feature, and in the indicated presence of a relatively larger than human 
canine, the jaw stands apart from all those of early man that have so far been 
discovered, and is correspondingly nearer to the chimpanzee or some related 
ancient anthropoid form. But neither of these features can be taken as con- 
clusively diagnostic of a chimpanzee nature of the jaw. All that we would 
seem to be justified in saying is that in these respects, as well as in one or two 
others, the bone resembles more that of an ape than man. But as we cannot but 
believe that the human lower jaw in its evolution must have passed through 
such stages, these features do not legitimately hinder us, if other characteristics 
so urge, from placing the jaw in the line of early man or his precursors. 

The lingual surface of the body of the jaw is quite smooth and presents noth- 
ing distinctive for either man or ape except the height of the body which on the 
inside even more than on the outside approaches the human type. The height of 
the body from the middle of the lingual border of the 3M alveolus is 3.0 cm.; 
in the adult chimpanzees of the U. S. National Museum it was found to be 
respectively 2.8, 2:7, 2:8, 2.5, 2.75, 2/4, 2.6, 2.85, 3:0, 27, 26, 209, and 26 cm. 
In the Mauer jaw this height was 3.3 cm.; while in modern human jaws a height 
of 3 cm. or even slightly over is quite common in males; in females it is lower. 
If the Piltdown jaw represents a female, as seems most likely, the male jaw 
of the same species would have been even higher and well beyond the range of 
variation of the chimpanzee. 

The teeth—The alveoli and interalveolar septa in the Piltdown jaw show 
little that could be regarded as distinctive in form; but they are larger antero- 
posteriorly, particularly in the case of the 3M, than in any chimpanzee available 


for comparison, coming much nearer the alveoli in some human mandibles with 
macrodont teeth. The total length in the median line of the three alveoli is 
3.9 cm.; in the Mauer jaw it is 3.8 cm.; in some modern human jaws with large 
teeth it ranges from 3.6 to 3.9 cm.;* in the available male chimpanzees it varies 
from 3.0 to 3.4 cm.;* in chimpanzee females from 3.1 to 3.25 cm. The size of 
the three molar alveoli in the Piltdown jaw is plainly not chimpanzee-like, but 
stands close to early and macrodont recent human. 

The breadth of the molar alveoli in the Piltdown mandible is just 10 mm. 
for each alveolus. This is also larger, and that by from 0.5 to 2.5 mm., than 
that of corresponding alveoli in any of the available chimpanzees,* but is 
equalled or closely approached in the Mauer (M1, 10; M2, 10.5; M3, 10 mm.) 
and in some modern human jaws with large teeth (Australian, No. 255,715, 
M1, 10.2; M2, 10.2; M3, 10.1 mm.; New Britain, No. 226,107, M1, 10; M2, 10; 
M3, 10 mm.; Arkansas Indian, No. 262,587, M1, 10; M2, 10; M3, 10 mm.; etc.) 

The dimensions of the alveoli in the Piltdown jaw, together with the two 
remaining teeth (rM1, M2), show that the teeth were large. They were larger 
than any chimpanzee molars that are available for comparison. The Piltdown 
man or woman, like the jaw of Mauer and probably also other early human jaws 
(La Chappelle, La Quina), came therefore in all probability from a macrodont 
ancestry. As the bone mass and the musculature of the jaw are both reduced, 
the size of the teeth cannot be regarded as an individual peculiarity. 

The two teeth themselves are naturally of much importance. They in a way 
resemble both the molars of some chimpanzees and those of some men. But they 
possess important characteristics that separate them from the ape teeth and 
approach them closer to human. They are somewhat more dolichodont (rela- 
tively long and narrow) than most human molars, but individual human teeth 
equalling them occur. In chimpanzees dolichodont molars are more frequent 
though there are also many exceptions; but in general the type of the crown 
in the chimpanzee is somewhat different. 

The two anterior cusps in each of the teeth in the Piltdown jaw were stout 
and close together as in many human teeth. In the chimpanzees as a rule these 
cusps are smaller and farther apart. 

In the chimpanzees the enamel part on the sides of the molars is lower (less 
in height) than in man; in the Piltdown jaw the conditions are about the same 
as in man. 

In the Piltdown jaw, as occasionally in man, the enamel on the outside and 
slightly also on the inside extends in a pointed way towards the notch between 

* Australian (U. S. N. M. Cat. No. 255,715), 3.9 cm.; Peruvian Indian (No. 
293,249), 3.7 cm.; New Britain (No. 226,107), 3.6 cm. 

*Males: U. S. N. M. Cat. No. 84,635 =3.3 cm.; No. 174,704 = 3.3 cm.; 
Noig174,710: = 3:0 em.; No. .176,226==3'1 cm; No, 176,227= 3.1 em.: No. 
£70,225 — 3:3 cm., No: 176,230 = 3-3 cm-.; No. 176,235 = 3:3 cm.; No. 176,244 = 
3.4 cm. 

Bemales:) UiiS. N. MM; Cat. No. 176,700\= 3:25 cm. No. 174,701 ='3.2' cm. ; 
No. 174,706 = 3.1 cm.; No. 176,229 = 3.1 cm.; No. 176,243 = 3.1 cm. 

*In the strongly developed male No. 174,699 the alveoli for the first and right 
second molars just reached.10 mm., but those for the other molars in the jaw 
are slightly to markedly smaller. 


the roots of the teeth: No such condition was found in the chimpanzees, though 
occasionally the limits of the enamel in their teeth are not easy to determine. 

The crown of the chimpanzee molars in the majority of cases shows, particu- 
larly externally, a marked bulge just above the gum (“cingulum”), from 
which the cusps slope more or less upwards. Externally this slope is sometimes 
very decided. In man, and that in early as well as recent man, the bulge mostly 
becomes just a convexity and the cusps are more vertical, making the surface 
of the crown larger. In the Piltdown teeth conditions are exactly as in human 

The Piltdown molars are moderately worn down to the level of the depres- 
sions between the cusps. These depressions as far as preserved, and the wear 
itself, are very much as they are in man. In the chimpanzees such depressions 
show some differences from both the prevalent human and the Piltdown type, 
and the wear of the teeth is generally irregular. But there is a chimpanzee jaw 
of the National Museum series (No. 84,655) in which the wear is about the same 
as in the Piltdown and many human molars, and there are not infrequently human 
molars in which the wear will be irregular. Nevertheless, in this feature again 
as in other characteristics of the crown, the Piltdown teeth range themselves 
on the whole closer to human than to the chimpanzee type. 

The crowns of the Piltdown teeth, in their height, find nothing resembling 
them in the teeth of the chimpanzee, but are closely like those of both early and 
modern man. This is one of the most important features in which the Piltdown 
specimen differs from the apes. The height of the crown from the uppermost 
part of the root notch to the level of the base of the furrows between the cusps, 
is externally in each of the Piltdown molars 8.5 mm. This can readily be dupli- 
cated in man; but the available chimpanzees give only (M2):5.5; 6.0; 6.5; 
6.0; 6.5; 7.0; 6.5; 6.0; 6.0; 6.0; 6.5; 6.0 mm. The Piltdown, Mauer, Brelade 
(Jersey) and recent human teeth (in general) are high-crowned or hypsodont ; 
the chimpanzees are as a rule low-crowned or chamaedont. A jaw with molars 
such as those of the Piltdown specimen cannot be that of a chimpanzee, unless 
we should arbitrarily assume some old form of that genus that was radically 
closer than recent chimpanzees are to the human type. 

The height of the enamel on the crown is in general difficult to measure due 
to the irregularity of its lower limits. In the Piltdown teeth the condition is 
further aggravated by the wear of the teeth. Notwithstanding all this, it can be 
estimated that the enamel layer of the Piltdown molars averages externally very 
close to 6 mm. without the cusps and that with the latter it reached 7.5 mm. 
These dimensions are common in man, both old and recent; but they are never it 
seems equalled in the chimpanzees. Taking the total height of enamel on the 
external surface of the Piltdown molars, with the cusps restored, as 7.5 mm., 
the nearest approach in a chimpanzee (British and U. S. National Museums) 
was 6.5 mm., and from this the measurements ranged to 5 mm., the most frequent 
figures obtained being 5.5 and 6 mm. Here then there is again an important 

The size of the individual molars in the Piltdown jaw is for M1, length along 
middle, 13 mm., breadth max. at right angles to length, 11 mm.; M2, length 
13 mm., breadth 11 mm. ; length-breadth index of each 84.6. The worn surface of 
the crown of the second tooth appears to the eye a trifle larger than that of the 
first molar, but on measurement the teeth are found to be so closely alike that a 


distinction is difficult. The little difference that there is, is limited (as not sel- 
dom in other cases) to the trituration surface of the crown. 

A good deal of weight has been placed upon the excess in the Piltdown teeth 
of their length over the breadth. It was apprehended as an inferior character 
and one placing the teeth nearer in type to those of the chimpanzee than to 
those of man. Upon closer examination into the subject this view is hardly 


Side “median ‘ Breadth | B-U | Length | Breadth | Index 
Mir M2 
mm, mm. mm. mm. 
Piltdown Jaw........ ie 1:3)40 II.0 84.6 13.0 II.0 | 84.6 
Piltdown, extra 
OOM heirs 5 chs Le 13.0 Teles ON | OAH wulllicy serena. Wheater. aes 
Early Man: Mauer...|_ r. TiTesS Ele LOORO, 11.5 II.5 |100.0 
Ehringsdorf....... L: 12.0 nis |) On s% 12E5 11:0) 6370 
Modern Macrodonts: 
Nat. Mus. Cat. No. 
New Britain..... 2 13.0 T2On O23 120 TTAONN | OTe 
No. 262,587, 
ATKANSASS yee 2) ii 12.0 II.5 95.8 11.5 10.5 91.3 
No. 304,095, 
ESkimoneenenee 1. 1220 II.0 Ql.7 I1.0 I1.0 |r100.0 
Nos. 320,916-53, 
WihtteiWe Stee IE 11.5 10.0 | 87.0 11.0 10.0 | 90.9 
Chimpanzees:1....... Aver. | 11.43 | 10.36 | 9.06 Ll SOM |) LOROOM|NO2ZNO 

(10 to | (9.5 to| (57.0 | (11 to | (10 to | (87.0 
7 Nalestrta ein. eeroia| ule I2) II) |to 95.0)| 12.5) II) |tog5.5) 

Aver. | 11.25 | 10.0 | 88.9 NO) | NOGA || Bas 

(ar to @i5) | (Gorges | 1-5) 1767.5 
4 Females......... ie II.5) |to1o.5)|tog5.5)| to 12) | to 11) | to 700) 

1 Taking all the available specimens, hence also those in which one of the two anterior polars 
is missing, we find one sole tooth, the first right molar of male chimpanzee jaw No. 176,227, U. 
N. M., in which the index comes near being that of the Piltdown teeth; the dimensions of this Sane 
are ee a .o; B., 10..0; Index, 83.3. Individual human molars of this ‘form could doubtless also be 

sustained. On one hand we find individual human teeth both recent and ancient 
that closely approach the Piltdown molars; while on the other it is found that 
chimpanzee molars also are in general relatively shorter. 

Among the remains of early man the majority of the bones and teeth are, 
regrettably, so imperfect that exact measurements of the molars are impossible; 
but a remarkable resemblance to the Piltdown teeth is found in the molars of 
the recently discovered lower jaw of Ehringsdorf, Germany. The figures on this 
page show the measurements of the teeth in various specimens. 



A detailed study of the Piltdown jaw shows this to be a truly remarkable 
specimen, and the more it is understood the more valuable it appears as a material 
proof of man’s antiquity. 

The jaw is more primitive than any other known jaw relating to early man. 
It still has a marked sub-mentoneal shelf, in all probability a large canine, and 
teeth of ancestral pre-human form. It resembles more or less in a number of 
points the jaws of the chimpanzee, but it differs from these in a whole series of 
points of importance, such as the form of the notch, type of coronoid process, 
subdued musculature, markedly reduced internal massiveness of body especially 
near symphysis; and in the most important characteristics of the teeth, namely, 
height of crown, height of enamel, nature of “cingulum” and stoutness of 
cusps—in all of which features it is nearer or like human. 

It appears to the author that in view of all this it is no longer possible to 
regard the jaw as that of a chimpanzee or any other anthropoid ape; but that 
it is the jaw of either a human precursor or very early man. Dr. Smith Wood- 
ward’s designation of this form as “ Eoanthropus ”’—a being from the dawn of 
the human period—seems very appropriate. 

An individual, or even genetic, specific, association of the Piltdown 
jaw with the massive remains of the two Piltdown skulls is, it may 
be repeated once more, exceedingly difficult of acceptance. The more 
the lower jaw is studied and understood the less in harmony it appears 
with the skulls and it is not unlikely that these latter belong to totally 
different, possibly chronologically much younger, human individuals. 

The above may be supplemented with the conclusions which I have 
arrived at by a detailed comparative study of the Piltdown molars.’ 

The peculiar molars of the Piltdown jaw connect, though in respect 
to their length and crown index only at the base of the range of vari- 
ation, with the teeth of man of today. 

They connect more closely with the more ancient teeth of early 
man and may without violence be included among them. 

They do not connect with the teeth of any of the living forms of 
anthropoid apes, though in general these are nearer to them than 
most man’s teeth in the crown index. 

In relative, and in one case even in absolute, proportion, they re- 
semble very closely the teeth from the Bohnerz Alb attributed to 
Dryopithecus rhenanus, particularly one of the lower molars; but in 
morphological details they differ from these, being more human. 

The only conclusion that appears justified from these further 
studies, as from the previous ones, is that the Piltdown teeth, primi- 

* Hrdli¢ka, A., Dimensions of the First and Second Lower Molars with Their 
Bearing on the Piltdown Jaw and on Man’s Phylogeny. Amer. Journ. Phys. 
Anthrop., Vol. 6, No. 2, p. 216, 1923. 

(‘SI [qd ‘69 ‘JOA “90S ‘[02*) ‘umnof ‘yren() ‘prempoo AQ Y}IUS Jaypy) “poureyqo oto 
Y} SI UOIZIAS dy} Ul YOOI-paq ay} UO SuIZSoT UIN}e1}s jsoylep oy, “Xassnsg 

a]qipueur pue [[NYs ay} YOTYM WOT Je 
poq-JoaAeis sulreoq-jUl] 

‘Sulyoya[y ‘UMOPIIq 38 “(Sped sSuysef{) spues saa esplaquny yy SUIA[IIAO 


Cah “Oafal atatek SaKoyas 


The parts of the frontal and parietal bones of the Piltdown skull (in upper 
figure, frontal on left, in lower on right). (After Smith Woodward, Guide to 
the fossil remains of man, Brit. Mus., 3rd ed.) 


The Piltdown jaw. (Photograph from the American Museum of Natural History.) 


tive as they are in some respects, are already human or close to 
human. Their characteristics indicate that they belong either to a 
very early man or his very near precursor. 

The close relation of the Piltdown molars to some of the late 
Miocene or early Pliocene human-like teeth of the Bohnerz Alb, as 
well as to those of the Ehringsdorf jaws, while not conclusive alone, 
raises legitimately the query as to whether man may not have 
evolved altogether in western Europe. 


The additional molar tooth of the Piltdown remains is in every 
respect so much like the first molar of the Piltdown jaw, that its pro- 
cedure from the same jaw seems certain, and it would seem probable 
that the account of its having been discovered at a considerable 
distance away might be mistaken. 

Information as to the discovery of the specimen was, Sir Arthur 
Smith Woodward informed the writer (Nov., 1927), conveyed to him 
orally by Dawson some time before the death of the latter. It was to 
the effect that the tooth was found, together with the two fragments of 
the second skull, among stones raked off by the farmer from his field. 
But how could a tooth be found among “the stones raked off the 
ground and brought together into heaps ” (Woodward, Quart. Journ. 
Geolky Soc: Vol. 73, Pt. 1. pl! 3; 1917). What rake would holdia 

The tooth agrees with those of the jaw perfectly not only in di- 
mensions and every morphological character, but also in the degree 
and kind of wear. If there are slight differences in the wear they are 
so small as to be insignificant. A duplication of all this in two distinct 
individuals would be almost impossible. 


The canine tooth, which bears a close resemblance in form to the 
milk canine of the higher anthropoids, the author is inclined to regard, 
both on account of the shape of the crown as well as the shape and 
curvature of the root, as the right lower canine from a female jaw. 
The wear of the tooth is somewhat peculiar, but not incompatible, it 
would seem, with this opinion. Taking into consideration the subdued 
muscularity of the Piltdown jaw, together with the strong indication 
of the presence of a large canine shown by the basal ridge on the 
anterior part of the outer surface of the body, it appears probable 
that the canine may after all have belonged to this specimen. 



The second skull, found, it will be recalled, two miles away in the 
rakings of a field, is represented by a fragment of the frontal bone. 
There is also a portion of the occipital which probably belonged to 
the same cranium. The find is described in detail by Dr. Woodward 
in the Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society, Vol. 73, Pt. 
I, I-10, 1917. 

The more important fragment is a part from the right supraorbital 
region and squama of a frontal bone, close to the middle line. Both 
pieces are similar in color and mineralization to the skull bones of 
the first find, and are only slightly less thick, The thinnest part 
of the squama that is left gave Dr. Woodward a thickness of 8 mm., 
the thinnest part of the frontal squama of the first skull 9 mm.; 
the greatest thickness of the occipital fragment is 17 mm.; of the 
occipital of the first skull 20 mm. 

The frontal part belongs clearly to a female skull of modern type, 
and the occipital conforms with this. Though this latter fragment 
shows more weathering, the characteristics of the two parts are such 
that their belonging to one skull is very probable. 

This second specimen makes it certain that in the Piltdown gravels, 
within a few feet from the surface, there occur mineralized skulls 
of almost if not wholly a modern form, though some, at least, are 
markedly thicker ; and with these skulls are loosely associated primi- 
tive human implements, and animal fossils of early Pleistocene as 
well as Pliocene age. The problem is whether the skulls, the imple- 
ments, and the animal fossils are contemporaneous; in other words, 
whether the skulls may not somehow be intrusive. 

One would like very much to avoid this question ; the probabilities 
seem all to speak for the specimens belonging together ; but in view 
of the history of the deposition of the gravels, together with some of 
the uncertainties of the find and the apparent incongruity of the 
parts, the mind is not satisfied. 


The Piltdown remains comprise a series of fragments of two 
skulls, derived apparently from coarse old gravels. 

There are several points of weakness in this connection, on which 
unfortunately no further light is now possible. 

The first is the circumstances of the find. The discovery and re- 
moval of the first skull was not supervised by scientific men; there is 
no information as to exactly how it lay and whether or not there was 


any noticeable disturbance of the gravel. No amount of trust and 
benevolence can quite fill these defects of the evidence. 

The apparent truth is that the brain part of the first skull was 
found nearly whole, as the reported “‘ cocoanut” which the laborers 
broke, and before removal the nasals and a turbinated (one of the 
spongy bones of the nose) were still plainly with it. Yet neither the 
skull fragments nor the easily damaged nasals or turbinal show in- 
juries or wear from being rolled in the gravel. Neither are there any 
gravel marks on the pieces of the second cranium, Here is an enigma 
which needs, it would seem, some further discussion. 

The skulls do not conform morphologically to their apparent an- 
tiquity and evolutionary grade. Were it not for their thickness— 
which experience teaches is an individual, or abnormal, rather than 
racial character—they could not on their own evidence be separated 
from modern crania. 

The very primitive jaw, with its primitive teeth, does not conform 
at all to the skulls. It and its teeth are true to its apparent geological 
age and evolutionary grade, the skulls are not. Its fitting to the skull 
in the reconstructions may, or may not, be correct. 

The similarity of mineralization of the different specimens has 
seemingly not yet been fully determined. But even if it should be 
found identical, as is probable, the evidence of it one way or the other 
could not be conclusive. Mineralization, it hardly needs to be repeated, 
is a geophysical and geochemical process that is not ever-progressive, 
but has its shorter or longer time limits; and two or more bones, 
though introduced into given conditions at widely different times, 
may nevertheless reach similar degrees of mineralization if the time 
of inclusion in both cases has been sufficient for the consummation 
of the changes. This is one of the a, b, c’s of natural processes, yet 
one that very often is forgotten in the presence of remains that 
show similar color, weight, and mineral alteration. The similar 
“ fossilization ’’ of the Piltdown bones cannot therefore be determina- 
tive, one way or the other. 

Thus the original main problem, the genetic and chronological asso- 
ciation of the jaw and the teeth with the two skulls, remains much as 
it was soon after their discovery, and no amount of thought, discus- 
sion, or even re€xamination of the specimens can promise, it seems, 
for the present, definite conclusions. The only hope, as in so many 
other cases in these lines, lies in new and sufficient discoveries. 

In view of all this it must be plain that any far-fetched deductions 
from the Piltdown materials are not justified. This applies particu- 
larly to the superficially attractive conclusions that the Piltdown 


remains demonstrate the existence in the early Pleistocene, long 
before the Neanderthal and even the Heidelberg forms, of men with 
practically modern-sized and modern-formed skulls and brains and di- 
rectly ancestral to Homo sapiens or recent man. This hypothesis is 
a proposition that would change the whole face and trend of human 
prehistory, and that against all other and better substantiated evidence 
in this line. Such a theory, all science will agree, could only be es- 
tablished as a fact by the most ample and satisfactory material 
demonstration, which is quite impossible in the present case. 

Work in the Piltdown gravels by Sir Arthur Smith Woodward is 
progressing ; but because of poor financial support the progress is 
both slow and very limited and has not been crowned so far by any 
new finds of importance. 


The principal original publications on the Piltdown remains have 
been quoted in the course of the preceding account of the specimens. 
For the many other contributions see references in the works quoted, 
especially those in Gerrit S. Muiller’s papers, including his “ The 
Controversy over Human ‘ Missing Links,’’’ Smithsonian Report 

for 1928. 

It is a relief, after the clouds of uncertainty that surround in large 
measure the remains of the Pithecanthropus and those of the Eoan- 
thropus, to turn to a single, normal, clearly authenticated and well 
defined specimen, the lower jaw of Homo heidelbergensis. 

The Heidelberg, or more properly Mauer, jaw is one of the oldest 
relics of early man. This precious document of man’s evolution is 
deposited in the Paleontological Institute of Heidelberg. For its 
preservation and thorough description we are indebted to Dr. Otto 
Schoetensack, at that time professor of anthropology at Heidelberg 
University, who for years had been watching the finds in the sand 
pits near Mauer which eventually yielded the specimen. But much 
credit in this connection is due also to Herr Joseph Rosch, of Mauer, 
the owner of the sand pits in question, who saved the specimen from 
destruction, immediately called Prof. Schoetensack’s attention to its 
discovery, and eventually donated it unselfishly to science. 

The specimen, the lower jaw of an adult male, was discovered 
accidentally on October 21, 1907, by two laborers. Both these were 
still employed in the quarry at the time of the writer’s first visit to 


the locality in June, 1912, and they readily related, in company with 
Mr. Rosch, who kindly had brought him to the quarry, all the circum- 
stances of the find. 

The deposits in which the specimen was discovered are located 
near the village of Mauer, which lies in the picturesque Elsenz Valley, 
six miles (10 km.) southeast from Heidelberg. They form the 
moderately elevated undulating northern boundaries of the shallow 
valley, at a distance of about 2 miles from the present bed of the river, 
and represent in the main the Quaternary accumulations of the 
stream. They consist of loess, sand, and gravels, with here and there, 
in the deeper layers, isolated flat blocks of red sandstone (pl. 15). 

The portion of these deposits owned by Mr. Rosch, located about 
500 paces north of the Mauer village, have now been worked, in open 
manner, for upward of 30 years, in which time great quantities of 
building sand have been removed. During this work, particularly 
in the lower strata, the workingmen often unearthed fossil shells and 
fossil bones of various Quaternary animals. Many of these specimens 
found there way, mostly as gifts of Mr. Rosch, to the Heidelberg 
University, and the diggings were repeatedly visited by scientific men, 
among them Prof. Schoetensack. Both the owner and the workmen 
were enjoined to watch for better preserved specimens, and particu- 
larly for anything relating to the presence of man. 

On the date of the find, two of the laborers were working in un- 
disturbed material at the base of the exposure, nearly 80 feet in depth 
from the surface, when one of them suddenly brought out on his 
shovel part of a massive lower jaw which the implement had struck 
and cut in two. As the men knew it was worth while to carefully 
preserve all fossils, the specimen was handled with some care. The 
missing half was dug out, but the crowns of four of the teeth broken 
by the shovel were not recovered. The men were struck at once with 
the remarkable resemblance of the bone to a human lower jaw; but 
it looked to them too thick and large to be that of man. They called 
Mr. Rosch and he also was bewildered; but he recognized immedi- 
ately that the specimen might be of considerable interest to Prof. 
Schoetensack and so he took charge of it. Returning to the village he 
telegraphed to the professor, who came the next day, and “ once he 
got hold of the specimen, he would no more let it out of his posses- 
He took it to Heidelberg, cleaned it, repaired it, and in 1908 
published its description in an exemplary way.’ Since then the valu- 


* Schoetensack, Otto, Der Unterkiefer des Homo heidelbergensis, aus den 
Sanden von Mauer bei Heidelberg, pp. 1-67, 13 pls., Leipzig, 1908. 


able specimen has been preserved in the Paleontological Institute of 
the Heidelberg University, where, thanks to the liberality of those 
in charge, it is available for examination to men of science.’ 

Shortly following the discovery of the jaw a most careful examina- 
tion and study were made of the Mauer deposits. They were found 
to range from recent accumulations on the surface to Tertiary de- 
posits in the lowest layers. The jaw lay a little less than three feet 
(0.87 meter) above the floor of the excavation and 79 feet (24.1 
meters) from the surface.” The same level, as well as some of the 
higher layers, yielded fossil bones of the Elephas antiquus, Rhi- 
noceros etruscus, Felis leo fossilis, and various other extinct species. 
The age of the human jaw has been determined by these and subse- 
quent explorations to be earlier Quaternary, though there seems to 
be some uncertainty as yet as to the exact subdivision of the period 
to which it should be attributed. 

The original specimen, when seen, impresses one at once and po- 
tently as one of the greatest anthropological treasures. It is a huge 
lower jaw, which looks simultaneously both human and ape-like (pl. 

It presents no abnormality or any diseased condition that could 
have altered it in shape, so that it may well be regarded as a perfect 
representative of its type. The bone is dull yellowish-white to red- 
dish in color, with numerous small and large blackish spots. The 
crowns of the teeth are dirty creamy white, with blackish discolora- 
tions on the somewhat worn-off chewing surfaces of the canines and 
incisors, and a few similar spots over the molars; while all the parts 
of the teeth beneath the enamel are dull red, as if especially colored. 
It is much mineralized and feels more like so much limestone than 
bone. It weighs nearly 7 ounces (197 grams on a letter scale). 

The jaw is considerably larger and stouter than any other known 
human mandible. Its ascending rami are exceedingly broad. Its 
coronoid processes, thin and sharp in modern man, are thick, dull, 
broad, and markedly everted. The chin slopes backward as in no 
human being now known or thus far discovered, with the excep- 
tion of the Eoanthropus ; and there are other primitive features. The 
total of the characteristics of the bone are such that, had the teeth 
been lost, it would surely have been regarded as the mandible of 
some large ape rather than that of any human being. 

*The writer wishes to thank herewith especially Prof. Wilhelm Salomon, 
chief of the Institute, for the courtesies extended. 

* The exact spot has been marked by Professor Schoetensack with a stone 
monument bearing the inscription: “ Fundstelle des menschlichen Unterkiefers, 
21 Oktober, 1907.” 


The teeth of the Mauer jaw, however, are perfectly preserved, 
and though large and provided with great roots and in various other 
ways primitive, they are unquestionably human teeth. They show 
no crowding, no diastemata. The labial cusp of the anterior premolar 
was decidedly pointed, the lingual cusp moderate. The teeth force 
the conclusion that their possessor, while of heavy, protruding face, 
huge muscles of mastication, wide and thick zygomatic arches, thick 
skull, probably heavy brows, and possibly not yet quite erect posture, 
had nevertheless already stepped over that line above which the being 
could decisively be termed human, His food and his mode of life 
were related to those of primitive man, and he was already far re- 
moved from his primate ancestors with large canines. 

The writer will not enter into the minute anatomical details of the 
specimen, which have been admirably brought out by Prof. Schoeten- 
sack, but will give, in a succinct form, his personal observations on 
the specimens. 


The jaw is characterized by a negative chin, sloping very distinctly 
backward from the vertical. 

The total vertical height of the jaw with its teeth, at the symphysis, 
is 5.2 cm.; in the normal condition of the teeth (without wear) it 
would be about 5.4 cm. This height alone is not very remarkable and 
could be matched or even exceeded in jaws of primitive races to-day.’ 

A very peculiar condition is presented by the lower border of the 
jaw anteriorly. This border is arched in a Cupid’s bow, the maximum 
elevation of which, above the horizontal, reaches 7 mm. on the right 
and 6 mm. on the left side. Such an arching or “ saddle ” is not known 
in any other jaw, ancient or recent. The arching extends to beneath 
the mental foramina (which are uncommonly large), and passes into 
a convexity of the lower border so that the corpus is highest at the 
vertical drawn from the first molar. The height diminishes thence 
backward in a gentle curve to about the middle of the ascending rami, 
where it again increases. 

Viewed from below, the anterior arched portion of the body of the 
jaw is not excessively massive, and presents no lingual shelf; but is 
characterized by a marked bilateral oblong depression for the attach- 
ment of the digastric muscles. The oblique line is stout and bulging, 
and in proper light is seen to extend in a curve to the root of the 
canine; this is seen especially well on the left side. Lingually the 

*Compare writer’s “The Anthropology of Florida,” Fla. Hist. Soc., Deland, 
Fla., 1922. 


jaw presents a relatively great excess of smooth bone in the anterior 
and premolar region, the thickness continuing to the molar region 
uniformly on the left, with some irregularity on the right. The 
lingual parts of the right molar portion of the jaw, above the 
mylohyoid ridge, resemble closely some of the hyperostoses or 
strengthenings found in some modern lower jaws, particularly among 
the Eskimo. 

The ascending rami are not very massive but very broad, and show 
an exceedingly shallow notch, particularly on the left side, which adds 
much to their unique appearance. The outer surfaces of these ram: 
are markedly hollowed out for muscular attachments, except in their 
middle portions which are mildly convex. The coronoid processes 
are relatively stout and markedly everted. 

The condyles differ from those of modern jaws by being of greater 
stoutness antero-posteriorly and lesser breadth laterally. Their articu- 
lar surface differs also from that of modern jaws, particularly on the 
left where the central eminence is very marked, so that looked at 
from the back the condyle has a markedly triangular appearance, the 
summit of the triangle being dull. The lower and posterior portions 
of the ascending rami are, curiously, thinner than they are in many 
strong modern jaws. The lingual mental spines are barely discernible 
as such; they are represented by a marked rough ridge above which 
is a fairly large shallow fossa. 


The teeth of the Mauer jaw present numerous points of interest. 
They are larger than modern teeth, with the exception of some of 
those found in the more primitive races. They are very regular and 
show neither crowding nor diastemata. The curve of Spy is slight. 
The crowns of the teeth show moderate wear. Morphologically the 
incisors resemble much those of modern man, but are stouter antero- 
posteriorly. There is no trace of lingual concavity (shovel-shape). 
The canines stand in just about the same relation to the neighboring 
teeth, both in size and shape, as they do in modern jaws. They have 
no lingual cusps. 

The anterior premolar, preserved on the right side, has more the 
appearance of a moderate sized canine with a high labial and a much 
smaller lingual cusp, than that of an average bicuspid. The crown 
of the second premolar is more like that in the modern teeth though 
not entirely similar. The molars had evidently five cusps each. The 
second molar is the longest and slightly also the broadest of the three. 
The third molar is well developed. 




Whole jaw and corpus: 

Total median length of whole bone 
(from anterior vertical to middle of 
base-line of plane formed by apply- 
ing a plank to posterior borders of 
EhepmAaT ecw heuer ee oe eae 

Length of jaw (from the most anterior 
point of the alveolar border be- 
tween the median incisors, to a 
point at corresponding height on 
the posterior border of ascending 


Bizonialaee Mathes e ee en. oe: 
BiCOKOnOldtee ee Aaa en ae oe 
Bicondylarasererin tat ee er 


Height of ascending ramus (verti- 
cal, from line connecting upper- 
most points on coronoids and 
CONGY1ES) Pere eee en eects 

Breadth min. of ascending ramus... . 

Transverse diam. max............ 
AE CLO=POSE.cGAMM sar ce, ois; 2 seen cess 


Vertical height in front, jaw and 
teeth (from horizontal plane on 
which the jaw reposes naturally). . 

Vertical height of bone at sym- 

Vertical height at 2nd molar........ 
Thickness of body (at right angles 
to vertical diam. of same) in med- 
ian line; midway from above...... 

The Mauer Jaw 

Modern Male 
German Jaw 

Schoetensack Hrdlicka Hrdliéka 
Tr. I Ts 1 rr 1 
cm, cm. cm. cm cm. cm 

close to 10.5 7.5 
WB iy «sere \\ Cail 9.0 

10.8 10.0 

Satets Toler 9.8 

13.04 T3T 122 
6.63? C275) 10205 0.5. nO. 5 
ipl pass OF |e, ZG 
he Ox OG |) eS 1.4 
107° 103° 106° | £16° 119 
DE28 225) eZee hel 2eO 1.95 
re TO | erg Tada | Or@ 0.9 

5-4 4-5 

(5.2+.2 for 
wear of teeth) 

3.354 35 3-4 
ae Safe me Sid 2.9 2.9 
3.18 eens aed 228 2.8 

Teg Tito! 0.9 



Modern Male 

The Mauer Jaw German Jaw 

Schoetensack Hrdli¢ka Hrdli¢ka 
tie I r. 1. ts 1. 
Corpus: (Cont.) cm. cm. cm. cm. cm. cm. 
Thickness, max., in median line...... BEER Bo 1.5 
Opposite Pmt; -0s scree ee phee 1.95 2.0 5 Nae by 
OppositeIMit. coi aoe oe see wna £85, EO \ Ea 5u, USS 
OppositewVies... - etc ee ee 220 2.05 2.08 | 1.5 1.55 
OppositeIM.4a5 Bree ase si SI 2525) 2525). 405 1.5 
‘Rhicknesssmaxa as 4a c5e sae ee 2535 
Dental Arch: 
Antero-posterior median diam....... deae 5.85 5.4 
Breadth max. (externally).......... fates 7.05 6.4 
Index: (STOO) in. e105 w fare etns « eae Seat 83.0 84.4 
Combined length of the 3 molars, 
CROWIS:-bo00 CA VA psi atone eee aaron anes SSS EO OMIESES Bn3 

1 The right corpus is longer, the left corpus nearly throughout slightly to perceptibly thicker. 
2 Doubtless some difference in method. 

3 Error. 

4 Too small. 


Mt M2 M3 

Schoeten- Hrdlicka? s EB 5 . 

is 1. ¥: I Ts se r. I; fr: 1. r. 1. 

mm. mm.jmm. mm.jmm. mm.jmm. mm.jmm. mm.jmm. mm. 



posteriorly)! j11162 2. .2.3)1T-2) 2.6. |T207 a... |P2UG. . ee ae aul 05k Omi 


labially)i....|21s2 22. \OP.2° 2. . S120). 2 T2407. Se ORO Mik S| heer aAO 
Index sacar QO OV rers | LOOPOM <4 OAD Dia ee OGRE aniee 89.3 98.3|91.7 95.7 
Length of the 3 

molars as 

they are In Hrdliéka: 3.6 cm. 

! Schoetensack, in his Memoir on the jaw, pp. 54-59, gives detailed measurements and details 
on all the teeth, with the results of X-ray examination. Where his and the present writer’s measure- 
ments differ slightly the cause must be slight differences in method. 

From Hrdli¢ka, A., New Data on the Teeth of Early Man and Certain Fossil Anthropoid 
Apes. Amer. Journ. Phys. Anthrop., Vol. 7, p. 100 et seq., 1924. Includes comparative measurements 
by same author and methods on many other teeth of anthropoids, early man, and present races. 

3 Schoetensack’s measurement is doubtless the maximum, the writer’s that along the median 
diameter of the tooth. 


The differences of the Mauer jaw from that of a recent German 
are very marked, especially in the antero-posterior dimensions of the 
whole bone, in its bicoronoid breadth, in the breadth of the ramus, 
in the depth of the notch, in the angle, in the antero-posterior diameter 
of the condyles, in the thickness of the body, in the proportions of the 
dental arch, and in those of the molar teeth. 


Mauer | Eskimo Mauer | Eskimo 
Whole Bone: Median cm. cm. ||Dental Arch: Median cm. cm. 
OH QUEM ore cil tia cos TONS y |) 963 cic 5.85 | 5.8 
Breadth: Breadth: max:, ext: ..|-7.05 | (627 
Bigonialtpepcerrr: TORGH eT 2ya Indexire peek Sect 83.0 | 86.6 
Bicoronoid........] 11.3 | 9.9 ||Teeth: Length of the 3 
Bicondylarsenae aloes molars in position. .| 3.6 3.5 
Corpus: Length, mean...} 12.3 | 11.3 Relative Sizes. 2... 54 M2 Mr 
Ramus: Mr M2 
Height, mean....3 30; 2: 6.85 7iey M3 M3 
Breadth min., mean..| 5.1 | 4.95 M1, labiolingual mm. | mm. 
Notch, depth max....| 0.8 1.2 dianive sd aresa cera 5d emo 5 
INTIS ERE peek tace shes 105° | 118° Maemlengthien sone er Wes || TACO 
Condyles: Transverse breadthipeeeeeerer WAPO). | LP) 
diate nah eee us 22250 2a index Sree wen 93.7 |102.5 
Antero-post. diam....} 1.35 | 1.25 
Height less teeth at 
SYMphHySiS .. .. <5. =: eee a5 
ate Mince crater: B35) SOS 
ACUI Dee tees cts aval EOS 
Thickness max. at 
SYMPHYSISe.2 06 oe - 2.5 2.0 
alts Villpsusic rencperscts. © AS 1.8 
atv Sere ene 2.07 | 1.85 

! No. 339,064, U. S. Nat. Mus.; from Tanunuk, Nelson Island, Western Alaska; collected 1927 
by Collins and Stewart. 

An even more interesting comparison perhaps will be that of the 
Mauer jaw with a recent powerfully developed jaw of an Eskimo 
the ascending rami of which, both in their breadth and form, approach 
considerably those of the fossil bone. The measurements are given 
in the above table. 

Notwithstanding the approach of the Eskimo to the Mauer jaw in 
various respects it is seen nevertheless that the fossil specimen still 
exceeds the recent one in total length in the bicoronoid and bicondylar 
breadth, in the antero-posterior diameter of the condyles, in the 


shallowness of the notch, in the thickness of the jaw, and in the 
breadth of the dental arch. The Eskimo jaw equals or nearly equals 
the Mauer mandible in the breadth of the ramus, in thickness at the 
first.molar, in the median length of the dental arch, and in the com- 
bined length of the three molars. The Eskimo jaw exceeds the Mauer 
specimen in the bigonial breadth, in the height of the ramus, in the 
angle (more oblique), in the breadth of the condyles, in the depth of 
the notch, and in the height of the corpus throughout its extent. The 
teeth of the Eskimo jaw, while large, have nothing of the primitive 
characteristics of those in the fossil specimen. 

Schoetensack has compared the Mauer specimen with all other 
fossil human jaws known up to 1908, the date of the publication of 
his Memoir. He found it to be more primitive on the whole than any 
other of these specimens and to represent more ancestral conditions. 


The carefulness of the workmen in the Mauer sand deposits has 
been redoubled since the find of the jaw, and the locality has also been 
subjected to considerable scientific attention, but thus far without 
further important result so far as human remains are concerned. The 
specimen found in 1907 became evidently mingled accidentally, and 
while still fairly fresh, with the ancient alluvia, wherein by rare good 
fortune it was perfectly preserved. Its eventual location was appar- 
ently not near a site of the man it represents, for the Mauer sands 
and gravels have so far yielded no human artifacts. There can be 
but little hope that other parts of the same skull or skeleton will ever 
be recovered ; but it is not impossible that the large early accumula- 
tions of the Elsenz Valley may inclose and some day yield parts of 
some equally early individual which will throw further light on the 
physical organization of this most interesting ancient representative 
of humankind. 


On June 17, 1921, a very remarkable human skull was discovered 
in the Broken Hill Mine, Northern Rhodesia. It was the skull of a 
man whose features were in many ways so primitive that nothing 
quite like it had been seen before; and coming from a part of the 
world which hitherto had given nothing similar and in which nothing 
of that nature was ever suspected, it aroused much scientific attention. 

* This section represents a part of the results of the author’s Smithsonian- 
Buffalo Society of Natural Sciences Expedition, 1925. 

(-yoesusyoyyaS Jo}FV ) 
SSOID dPTYM & AG PAYTEUI SI pataAoosip seM MeL JoMOT 94} 914M yods oy, “Asszenb stoneyy oy, 



1. The Mauer jaw. (After Schoetensack. ) 

2. The Mauer jaw. (After Schoetensack. ) 


Fortunately the specimen was saved with but minor damage, and 
later in the same year was brought by the manager of the mine to 
the British Museum (Natural History) where, safely preserved, 
it constitutes one of the scientific treasures of that Institution. 


The detailed circumstances of the find were, however, not as fully 
and definitely established from the start as would have been desirable. 
The specimen was found and taken out by a miner; there was no 
scientific man on the spot, and the wonder is that so much was saved. 
The whole occurrence is to the lasting credit of all concerned. 

The lack of precise information on certain important points was 
soon felt by the students of the subject; and it now seems that even 
what was known at first suffered some subsequent confusion. The 
sparse data about the Rhodesian find left a desire for more details 
regarding the position of the skull, its surroundings, the cave itself 
and its fillings, the nature of the animal bones in the cave, the general 
region in which the “ broken hill’ with its cave existed, and possible 
other remains, as wel! as the native types of the territory. The skull 
was so remarkable that every view of it and every further word 
published upon it served only to intensify the feeling of need for 
more complete information on the above points. It was this motive, 
together with the recent discovery of the skull of a highly interesting 
anthropoid ape near Taungs, Bechuanaland, that induced the writer 
to extend his late journey to South Africa. 

The success of his visit to Northern Rhodesia was due largely to 
the aid of Professor Dart of Johannesburg, and to the fine men in 
charge of the “ Rhodesia Broken Hill Development Company.” Of 
the latter particular thanks are due to Messrs. Ross K. Macartney, 
the General Manager ; George W. Rudyerd, Assistant General Man- 
ager; W. E. Barron, former Captain of the Mine; and G. Chad 
Norris, Engineer. But there were many other helping hands, in- 
cluding Dr. Wallace, Messrs. Jolly, Swigelaar, Hayward, and still 
others, whose assistance is hereby gratefully acknowledged. The 
efficient and high-minded officials of the mine deserve the thanks of 
the whole scientific world, for it was due only to them that the Rhode- 
sian skull was preserved and brought in safety to the British 
Museum. These gentlemen extended to the writer every facility. 
They would doubtless do this to any other qualified student, and they 
will henceforth watch keenly for all further discoveries on the site 
and in the vicinity. 


Upon his arrival at Broken Hill the writer was rather astonished 
to find the whole region for many miles in every direction to be a 
great, loosely forested plateau, perfectly level except for a small 
“kopje” situated near the railway tracks as one nears the Broken 
Hill mine and settlement. This little hill, only about go feet high, 
is said to resemble closely the former “ broken ”’ hill which gave us 
the Rhodesian man and which has now been removed through mining 

The plateau of the town of Broken Hill is 3,874 feet above sea 
level. Up to the time of the commencement of mining operations it 
was a part of a vast, featureless, more or less openly forested region. 
But the minerals in the two kopjes—lead and zinc—may have been 
known to the natives in earlier times. At all events, in digging ditches 
and in other surface excavations about the mines and in the town, 
there are being found, buried as deep as 8 feet below the present 
surface, old primitive native smelters, with here and there some 
negro pottery indicating probably former burials. Mr. J. H. Hay- 
ward in charge of the surface works, has found such an old primitive, 
probably negro smelter under the roots of a big tree, and he led the 
writer to a ditch where 6 to 8 feet below the surface were seen im situ 
large fragments of thick black native pottery. There evidently existed 
here at one time a native settlement, the men of which worked some 
ore. The smelters may, however, have been used for iron or other 
metal than those found in the two small local hills. 

The “broken” kopje consisted of hard dolomitic limestone im- 
pregnated with lead, zinc salts, and vanadium. It was originally full 
of crevices and holes, and had, as shown in the course of mining, at 
least two large caves leading deep into the interior. The cave of spe- 
cial interest became known as the bone cave. In the course of time it 
had become filled with sand, soil, bones of animals, and detritus of 
various kinds, which in turn were impregnated by seepage carrying in 
solution mineral salts and lime. The salts formed incrustations on the 
walls, here and there new ore deposits, and in general consolidated 
most of the contents, bones included, into “‘ pay ore.” 

The kopje that yielded the ‘‘ Rhodesian skull”? was situated ap- 
proximately northwest to west of the present railroad station, and 
was about 50 feet high by 250 feet in its longer diameter. This entire 

*In one of the accounts to be quoted later mention is made of several such 
small hills, but only one and the remains of the one that gave the skull were seen 
by the writer. 


elevation has now disappeared and where once was a hill is now a 
deep hole, in and about which mining operations are still energetically 
conducted (1925). 

Mining by white men is said to have begun at Broken Hill in 
1895. Information about these times is hazy. The tradition is that 
the “broken hill” before mining looked much like the kopje now 
remaining ; that its weathered and irregular surface was, as already 
said, honey-combed with holes and crevices ; but that apparently none 
of the openings led to the great cave filled with bones, débris, and 
ore, which in 1921 gave the Rhodesian man. 

The main part of the bone cave appears to have been entered by 
the miners accidentally in the course of their operations; it was 
partly excavated and found to contain large quantities of more or less 
mineralized animal bones, with some stone implements. Of this oc- 
currence there are reliable records.’ The initial notes on the subject 
are of such value, and at least one of the reports is so difficult to 
find, that the relevant parts are reproduced in full at the end of this 

So much for the earlier information about the Broken Hill cave, 
and nothing further appears to have been said in print about it until 
the latter part of 1921, when the Bulawayo and other South African 
papers brought news about the discovery of the “ Rhodesian skull.” 

These earlier reports of which the writer saw copies at the office 
of the Broken Hill Development Company, are of the usual news- 
paper style and, beyond signalling the discovery, give little of value. 
The first more detailed notices of the find appeared on November 8, 9, 
10, and II, 1921, in the London “ Times.” Shortly after that, on 
November 17, the first brief scientific report of the find was published 
in “ Nature” by Dr. A, Smith Woodward; and on November 109, 
a comprehensive and gorgeously illustrated report by W. E. Harris,’ 
as well as a description of the skull itself by Sir Arthur Keith, was 
carried by the “ Illustrated London News,” with the addition of an 
ingenious restoration of the race of men represented by the specimen. 

Four years (1925) have elapsed since then. In their course at least 
eight further brief scientific contributions on the subject of the 
“Rhodesian Man ” have seen light. And the skull, with the type and 
age of the human form to which it belonged, remains still largely a 
puzzle. Moreover, errors of a serious nature have crept into the 

*Mennell, F. P., and Chubb, E. C., On an African Occurrence of Fossil Mam- 
malia Associated with Stone Implements. Geol. Mag., n. s., Decade V, Vol. 4, 
P. 444 et seq., Jan—Dec., 1907. See Appendix I. 

* See Appendix II, 


accounts of the circumstances of the discovery, and these have already 
materially affected important conclusions. 

What one learns definitely from the early notices of Broken Hill, 
by one of the chief officials of the mine (Engineer Franklin White), 
is that about 1907 the bone cave was found accidentally in tunneling 
operations ; that it was not known to have any outward opening ; that 
it was nearly filled with large quantities—many tons—of more or less 
mineralized bones, clay, débris, and ore ; and that with the bones were 
fairly numerous quartz and chert implements, resembling in general 
those of Bushmen and perhaps other African natives of protohistoric 
and prehistoric times. 

Some of the implements and bones were saved through the in- 
strumentality of Mr. White and donated to the Bulawayo Museum. 
They were later studied by Mennell and Chubb. Still later the bones 
came to the British Museum and were examined by Andrews. They 
were diagnosed, with one probable exception, as belonging to recent 
forms of Rhodesian mammals. There were no human bones in the 
collection. The archeological objects were noted but the find was not 
followed up. 

Then came the accidental great discovery of 1921. Again there was 
no scientific expert on the spot and none came after. The details 
were not noted in writing. The news circulated in the South African 
papers, but there was no authoritative account; the reports differed 
among themselves and included inaccuracies. 

Five months after the discovery, the skull and a number of human 
as well as other bones were brought to England by Mr. Macartney, 
the manager of the mine, and were generously donated by the com- 
pany to the British Museum (Natural History). No written state- 
men accompanied the donation. But from the oral account of Mr. 
Macartney, and above all from the good illustrated article by William 
E. Harris, an official of the mine, in ‘‘ The Illustrated London News,” 
November 19, 1921, there became established a notion of the details 
of the find which was gradually adopted by all writers on the skull 
and which is responsible for serious uncertainties. Above all it 
became an accepted idea that several human bones brought to England 
with the skull were found with the cranium and belong to the same 
individual or the same people, and from the characteristics of these 
bones deductions were made as to the morphological and even chrono- 
logical status of the Rhodesian man. Some measurements of the 
skull and bones were published, also a few observations and thoughts 
on the endocranial cast which represents the brain; a tacit expectation 


was reached that a complete report on the case was being prepared by 
Doctor Smith Woodward; and active interest was gradually trans- 
ferred to new discoveries. 

These were the data and such was the state of affairs when the 
opportunity to visit the Broken Hill locality came to the writer during 
the summer of 1925. 


With the utmost cooperation of the officials of the mine, and in 
fact, of every one approached, the first task was to learn on the spot 
as much as possible of the history of the 1921 discovery. This unex- 
pectedly proved no easy matter, owing to the scarcity of old employees, 
but especially to the uncertainties of memory of those who had been 
present at that time. The following nevertheless appeared to be the 
consensus of the recollections : 

Before mining began in this craggy “broken” kopje there was 
nothing to indicate the presence of any human habitations about the 
hill. If there was anything it was not conspicuous and escaped notice. 

Mining was carried on from a side, but due to the conditions of the 
mineral deposits, work was later commenced also from the top, pro- 
ceeding downwards. During the earlier operations from the side, a 
good-sized cave or fissure was reached and found to contain dirt, 
ores, and numerous bones. The bones were those of animals; if any 
others were present they were not noticed. They were mostly so 
mineralized that they were in the main smelted with the rest of the 
ore, and after the first impressions received little further attention. 

When the excavations from the top reached in the center to ap- 
proximately 90 feet below the surface of the ground surrounding the 
kopje, a large inclined plane was opened to the central funnel from 
near the side at which the original work began. At some distance this 
plane once more encountered the large bone crevice that had been 
discovered before. The crevice here passed obliquely across part of 
the incline, and, as in the portion seen earlier, was filled with detritus, 
bones of bats or rodents, ore, and more or less mineralized bones of 
larger animals. The extent and contents of this cave or crevice were 
only learned gradually in the course of the prolonged work of mining. 

After the inclined plane reached the bottom of the central excava- 
tion, some of the workmen were directed to turn back and work on 
the ore and stone exposed by the plane; and it was in these parts, 
not long after, at a level of approximately 60 feet below the surface, 
that a Swiss miner, Mr. T. Zwigelaar, working with his black ‘‘ boy ” 
in some softer fillings, was confronted after a stroke of the boy’s 
pick with the Rhodesian skull. 


It is to the lasting credit of this miner that the specimen was care- 
fully taken out, saved, brought to the attention of his superiors, and 
reached the right hands. These hands, at the advice of the manager 
of the mine, were those of the company physician, Dr. A. F. Wallace, 
and he safeguarded the specimen for three weeks in his office. It was 
then taken in charge by the manager, Mr. Macartney, to be later in 
the year personally transported by Mr. Macartney to the British 
Museum. There was much more to the story than here expressed, 
and some of the details were stated differently by different persons, 
but the above appear to be the simple essentials. 

After learning the generalities and being shown over the mine by 
Mr. Rudyerd, the writer endeavored to reach personally every man 
concerned with the find or on the spot at that time, who might still 
be found at Broken Hill or reached through the mails, in order to 
obtain from each one independently as detailed and circumstantial 
information about the discovery as it might still be possible to get. 
As only four years had elapsed since the time of the find, it was 
hoped that a number of the men who were concerned with it would 
still be found on the spot and that their memories of the find would 
still be quite clear and reliable. 

As good fortune would have it, before the writer’s departure from 
Broken Hill he was able to locate and interview five of the men con- 
cerned from the beginning in the discovery, including Mr. Zwigelaar 
who actually found the skull; and a sixth one was reached later by 
a letter. Each of these men was most willing to tell all he knew ; but 
their memories regrettably were no longer clear as to the particu- 
lars. However, what was obtained is not without importance. 

The most noteworthy information is that of the discoverer of the 
specimen, Mr. Zwigelaar. He was found to be a serious middle-aged 
man, not highly educated but of good common sense, and he tried 
hard to give the main facts of the find as he remembered them. The 
gist of his statements, repeated and reasserted, follows: 

It was about 10 a. m. one day. We were working back from the incline at its 
lower part. I had a colored boy (young man) with me and we were “ hand pick- 
ing” in a pocket where there was much lead ore. The digging was not hard, not 
like stone, more loose. After one of the strokes of the pick some of the stuff 
fell off, and there was the skull looking at me. It was very strange and with 
some of the matter adhering to it looked so unlike an ordinary human skull 
that I thought it was a big gorilla. I took it out carefully, showed it to the 

officials of the mine and others, and later that day brought it in to Mr. Macartney 
who in turn sent it to Dr. Wallace. Soon after the find was made Mr. Macartney 


(I believe) took a photograph of me holding the skull against the place where 
it came from (pl. 18),’ and other photographs were taken also. 

The skull was at some depth under the pure lead ore and, as far as I can recall, 
about 10 feet below what seemed to be the floor of the bone cave further away. 
Where we were then I could see no connection between the material about the 
skull or the pocket it was in and the bone cave, though it may have been [and 
later was shown to be] the same old crevice. They were separated by the lead 
ore and the stuff in which the skull lay. That ore was very rich; it was not hard 
though necessitating the use of a pick. There was much of it further in and above. 

There were no other bones close to or near the skull, and no other objects that 
aroused attention. But a little later and not far below the skull we came on a 
sort of a bundle which looked like a flattened roll of hide standing nearly upright ; 
the “hide” was thick and was of ore; it showed no remains of a real hide but 
looked somewhat like it. Pieces of it were removed and shown about, the rest 
was smelted. There was nothing within the “roll’—no bones nor any other 

The skull was surrounded by softer stuff. There was something like bat bones. 
There were hard and soft spots in the digging. Next day we looked for the 
lower jaw but nothing was found. 

Some time afterwards, but on the same day, we found outside of where the 
bundle was and to one side of it, about three feet away as near as I can remem- 
ber, the leg bone of a man. There were no other bones. Later and lower was 
found a skull said to be that of a lion; but that was not found by me. 

The skull was taken first to the manager’s office and from there to the doctor’s. 
That’s all I know. 

So much for Mr. Zwigelaar. On repeated questioning, his account 
remained the same. He was positive the skull was alone, without the 
lower jaw and without any other bones in association. He also was 
positive that there was no covering of the skull and that the “ roll” 
lay lower and not in connection with the specimen, Directly behind 
the skull were some bat bones. 

The next most important person still present at Broken Hill was 
the mining captain at the time of the discovery of the skull, Mr. W. 
E. Barron. Mr. Barron was found at the site of the new dam and 
power tunnel about 20 miles from Broken Hill, and was brought back 
to the mine. Unfortunately his recollections of the details of the dis- 
covery were already hazy. However he produced an old note book in 
which he had written, shortly after the find was made (a day or two 
later) the following valuable notes: 

“Old Bone Cave: Skull found at side of incline about 60 feet 
level, by Zwigelaar, 17-6-21. A mass of small bones (probably bat 
bones) all around it. 

"This precious and unique photograph was loaned by Mr. Zwigelaar to the 
writer and is here reproduced. 


“Tn afternoon of same day big portions of animal skull with teeth 
in good condition (apparently lion) found in same place (speaking 
generally) by Angelo.” 

All other information regarding this lion’s skull is to the effect that 
it was found at some distance away from the skull, possibly as much 
as 8 or 10 feet, and at a considerably lower level. It was impossible 
to ascertain conclusively what had become of this specimen. There 
is a somewhat mineralized lion’s skull, proceeding doubtless from 
some part of the bone cave, in Mr. Macartney’s office and it may be 
the specimen in question; or it may have been forwarded to the 
British Museum. 

Mr. Barron assured the writer also that in the same digging there 
was found an artificially made quartz ball about 3 or a little over 
3 inches in diameter (size of a fist). Zwigelaar upon re-interrogation 
in the presence of Mr. Barron was sure that there were no bones 
whatever, human or animal, near the human skull except the bat 
bones; neither could he remember anything about the stone ball. A 
stone ball answering to the description was later brought to the writer 
with a statement that it came from somewhere in the end part of the 
crevice, and was taken by him with other objects to the Museum at 
South Kensington. However, other similar balls from the cave had 
also been taken to the Museum with the skull in 1921 (see page 122). 

Mr. Barron’s name in the English records of the find is given as 
“Barren,” and as in the same records he is reported as the discoverer 
of the skull, the writer asked him for a written statement on both 
points. The result was the following letter which settles both 
questions : | 

Mu.Luncusul, R. B. H. D. Co. Ltp. 
Broken Hit, N. RHopEsIA 
12TH DEc., 1925 
Dear Mr. HebiicKa: 

I was very glad to get your letter. I have come across the correspondence 
of December, 1921, which I mentioned to you, and, as it has bearing on the whole 
matter connected with the skull I am enclosing it all for your perusal. The copy 
of my letter to Mr. Moffat I have just made from a pencilling I had with the 

It was Zwigelaar and his boy who saw the skull i situ and extracted it, and 
Zwigelaar brought it to my office. I was Mine Captain in charge of mining 

The collar bone and the case referred to in my letter to Mr. Moffat were cer- 
tainly in the close vicinity of the skull, and we attributed them to the same 
skeleton at the time, the casting being taken for the fossilised remains of the skin 
he was wearing..... 

With kindest regards, 

Yours sincerely, 
(Signed) W. E. Barron. 


The “ December 1921 letter to Mr. Moffat” referred to above, 
reads as follows: 

DEAR Mr. Morrat: 

I got your letter about the skull. 

The following is from my note book: “Old Bone Cave: Skull (which might 
be either man or monkey) found East side of Incline about 60 ft. level by T. 
Zwigelaar 17-6-1921. 

“A mass of small bones (probably bat bones) all around it. 

“In afternoon of same day big portion of skull with teeth in good condition 
(apparently lion) found in same place by Angelo. Block P 7.” 

I gave the above in my report, either fortnightly or monthly, of the period, 
which could be obtained from the Mine office in Broken Hill. 

A spherical stone implement, a collar bone* and a lot of casting (fossilised 
skin or matting) were found practically in the same place. 

I have brought away with me none whatsoever of the bones or implements. 

The skull, and a number of other fossilised bones which Dr. Wallace (of 
Broken Hill) considered of special interest,” were packed in a box for Mr. Mac- 
artney to take to London with him. 

There was quite an interesting lot of bones shelved in the office and the tool 
hut at the mine when I left. Mr. Macfarlane, my assistant, who took over from 
me, will know of them.° 

One huge bone which appeared to be the thigh of an elephant or something of 
that kind, Mr. Macfarlane should have no difficulty in sorting out from the tool 
hut; an assay of a portion of it gave about 8 per cent Pb. and 4 per cent Zn; 
it was got from about the 4o ft. level many months ago. Another of special 
interest is in the Survey Office behind the Engineer’s Office; it has the appear- 
ance of having been an elephant’s hip bone or something of that sort, also from 
about 40 ft. level. 

As the skull which is attracting so much attention was got from the East side 
of the incline at about 60 ft. level, and a great deal of bone débris is probably 
still intact in the incline itself, things should be watched with great interest when 
the time comes for mining away of the incline when hoisting commences at 

No. 2 shaft. 
Yours faithfully, 
(Signed ) W. E. Barron. 

Another old employee, who was present at the time of the discovery 
of the “ Rhodesian Man” and who saw the specimen shortly after 
it was discovered, could give no details of value, The importance of 
the find was not appreciated, no special effort was made to go into 
details, and the incident passed out of memory. 

* No such bone was remembered by Zwigelaar, and no such specimen is in the 
British Museum (Natural History). 

* This phrase deserves close attention. There is no intimation that these bones 
were associated with the skull. 

* This is doubtless one of the lots of bones found by the writer; see later. 


The manager of the mine, Mr. Macartney, remembers clearly the 
main items relating to the find. He saw the skull shortly after dis- 
covery and he also saw the place where it was found. He feels certain 
that the softer spot in which the skull lay contained quantities of 
detritus with bats’ bones. He also remembers a thick layer (about 
30 feet) of very pure and not very solid lead ore that lay between 
that part of the crevice or cave that contained the skull and the bulk 
of the cavity which was filled with more or less mineralized animal 
bones, detritus, etc. There is uncertainty as to a possible connection 
of the contents of the two portions of the cave under the ore. 

Dr. Wallace very kindly gave the writer a written account of his 
recollections. They are as follows: 

I only heard about the skull about two weeks after it was found. It was then 
at the Mine office, and the General Manager, Mr. Macartney, sent it down to 
my surgery where I had it for three weeks. I am quite sure that the lower jaw 
was never found. The skull was sent to me with a few other bones in a box. 
Amongst these bones was what might have been a human tibia. I did not recog- 
nize any of the other bones as being of human origin.’ 

Mr. Armstrong, who at the time was the metallurgist here, took a great inter- 
est in the skull. It was he who first told me about it. I think that among the 
bones sent with the skull were two pieces of what Mr. Armstrong thought was 
some fossilized material that had been wrapped round the body. Mr. Armstrong’s 
idea was that this had been an animal’s skin. I think Mr. Armstrong has a piece 
of this in his possession but I am not sure. 

One of the teeth in the skull was loose and could be lifted out. When I sent 
the skull and the other bones back to the Mine Office I sent the tooth with them. 

The writer then wrote to Mr. Armstrong, who meanwhile had 
moved to Australia, and received from him the following notes :* 

Dear Mr. HrpiicKa: 

I was extremely pleased to hear from Dr. Wallace of your visit to Broken Hill, 
and much regret that I was not there. .... I was informed of the find a few 
minutes after the skull had been unearthed, and immediately went to the mine 
and collected all the bones exposed in the immediate vicinity.’ The bones which 
were eventually taken to Kensington Museum proved to be (1) part of a human 
lower [upper] jaw; (2) a human leg bone; (3) a lion’s skull. 

At the time of the discovery I was in charge of the Works only and had no 
authority at the Mine.... . No systematic search was made for further impor- 

tant bones and the skull with the bones I had collected was left in the Mines 
Shelter Office. 

*This is an important statement, made by one well acquainted with human 

2 ° ° 
Certain personal references omitted. 
A : 
Statements plainly somewhat erroneous. 


In 1922 I left Broken Hill and came to Australia. At the request of Professor 
Burkitt I called at the Sydney University and gave him particulars of the find. 
I left the sample to which you refer with him. It was not a bundle (I know noth- 
ing of any bundle being found) ; it was part of a protective covering which com- 
pletely encased the skull.t. This had been broken off before I arrived at the mine. 
The importance I place on this is due to the fact that none of the other bones 
in the vicinity had any such covering. 

In August, 1922, I went to London and called upon Professor Woodward at 
the Kensington Museum. He showed me the skull and the various bones which 
had been delivered to him by Mr. Macartney and I recognized the ones which he 
stated were the lower [upper] jaw, and the leg bone and the lion’s skull—these 
were all discovered within a foot of the skull.’ 

I know little of anthropology, but from the geological point of view and from 
close observation of the so-called “cave” in which the skull was found, I con- 
sider there is proof of a much greater age than the estimate given by Woodward. 

Yours truly, 
(Signed ) A. S. ARMSTRONG. 

The foregoing documents make it only too evident that the exact 
details of the rare find were recorded by no one; and that the re- 
membrance of them has in the course of time become more or less 
confused even in those who were on the spot soon after the discovery. 
The statement of Mr. Harris in “ The Illustrated London News” 
(see Appendix) made five months after the event is doubtless no less 
faithful but also no less defective than the others. 

Hoping that something more precise might have been given to the 
British Museum (Natural History), the writer turned to Dr. Bather, 
the present Keeper at that Museum of the Department of Geology 
and Palaeontology, and was very kindly furnished with copies of all 
the official entries relating to the find and an earlier collection from 
the same cave. They read as follows: 

November 15, 1921 Franklin White, Esq., 
3379 1ta Harrington Gardens, S. W. 7. 

Four stone implements and three pieces of worked bone collected by the donor 
in a cavern in the Broken Hill Mine, N. W. Rhodesia. 

November 24, 1921 The Directors of the Rhodesia Broken Hill 
3382 Development Company, Ltd., 
(per Edmund Davis, Esq., Chairman), 
19 St. Swithin’s Lane, E. C. 4. 

A primitive human skull, with part of maxilla of a second skull, a sacrum, 
three pieces of femora, and a tibia; also seven associated bones of mammals, and 
two round pounding stones; found in a cavern at the Broken Hill Mine, N. W. 

‘Statements plainly somewhat erroneous. 
* Error. 


May 8, 1922 Franklin White, Esq., 
3438 19 St. Swithin’s Lane, E. C. 4. 

Collection of stone implements from Broken Hill cave and other localities in 
South Africa. 

As the collective sifted result of the information obtained from all 
quarters, with the results of the personal inspection of the mine and 
of what remained of the bone cave, and with the impressions left by 
the different men associated with the finds, the conclusion is that the 
real conditions had probably been somewhat as follows: 

The “bone cave” was an extensive irregular crevice running for 
120-150 feet inward and downward from near the outer base of the 
hill and reaching the maximum depth below the surface of about 
70 feet. 

There is no recollection of the mouth of the “ cave” and this may 
have been covered or obstructed. Inside, the crevice enlarged to a 
cavern which at its maximum measured probably over 30 feet in 
breadth and twice as much in height. 

For some distance from the mouth of the cavern the floor of the 
latter was nearly level or but moderately inclined, then there was a 
steeper descending slope, and after that the crevice ran irregularly 
downward and inward. 

The outer part of the cavern was largely filled with more or less 
mineralized and consolidated bones of animals, cave detritus, large 
quantities of bones of bats or small rodents and nondescript earthy 
material, the walls being covered with crystals of the ores of zinc 
and vanadium. The larger bones were distributed unequally through 
the filling of the cave, in some places there being large quantities of 
them, in others few or none. They extended to and beyond the descent 
in the floor. 

The lowest and innermost part of the cavern was filled by detritus, 
some bones, and a considerable layer or rather layers of very pure 
and more or less crumbly lead ore. The ore contained no bones or 
foreign substance; but it is not absolutely known whether the con- 
tents of the distal part of the cavern had a direct connection with 
the materials in the large outer portion through or underneath this 
lead ore. 

The skull was found at some distance beneath a layer of this ore, 
which was according to Mr. Zwigelaar’s recollection, about 10 feet 
thick. It was not itself embedded in the ore, but in a detrital material 
not mineralized to any extent, and containing a quantity of “ bat” 


The skull was an isolated object. It lay upright. There was no 
lower jaw, nor any other bone in apposition, Beneath it, at some dis- 
tance, was what looked like a large flattened skin bundle, thoroughly 
mineralized. This was probably a natural laminar formation of the 
lead ore. Barring a few fragments it was smelted. 

Somewhere in the vicinity of the lower portion of this “ bundle ” 
was found a remarkably straight, but otherwise not peculiar, full- 
sized male human tibia, and lower at some distance were portions of 
a mineralized lion’s skull. In the vicinity there may have been found 
also some other human fragments, but here much is uncertain. 

The larger part of the bone contents of the main part of the cave 
were so mineralized that they passed for a good grade of zinc ore and 
were smelted as such. Various portions of the cave fillings, however, 
were poorer and were brought out and thrown on a dump where, 
covered by poor rock and débris thrown out subsequently, they still 
repose. The ground and débris in the dump are still full of fragments 
and pieces of bone, with teeth, chips of quartz, etc. 

Only traces of the great cave now remain in the mine, and as the 
work progresses they will disappear. The opposite wall of the mine 
shows an even larger old cavern, completely filled with less consoli- 
dated and somewhat darker materials than the surrounding rock. 
This cave has given no bones. 


While gathering this information the writer learned casually that 
some of the loose bones from the bone cave—exact parts unknown 
were saved and might possibly still be found in some of the offices 
and tool huts of the mine. Accordingly as soon as possible a search 
was instituted in company with Mr. Rudyerd, and before long several 
lots of such bones were located in the main office, in the designer’s 
room, in another small office, and in two small huts near the mine. 
Those in the main office were in a case with a series of mineral 
specimens from the mine, and represented especially bones enclosed 
in mineral matrix; the bones in the other places were loose and not 
encrusted, only more or less covered with earth and dust. All the 
bones, however, showed more or less mineralization. 

In addition the officials of the Company very kindly gave the 
services of two “ boys,” with whose help digging was begun into the 
old dump, with the result that in two days numerous additional bones 
and teeth were added to those already located. All this material was 
then washed, dried, spread out on a large designer’s table and sorted. 



Even before this, however, while handling the dusty bones in the 
designer’s office and in the tool house, the writer had found among 
them in the former place a large portion of the distal end of a human 
humerus, and in the hut a piece of a human parietal. Both of these 
specimens showed the same mineralization as the rest of the numerous 
bones and were plainly parts of the same lots. As there is not the 
slightest intimation that these many scores of animal bones, some 
of them very conspicuous, were found anywhere near the Rhodesian 
skull, they probably all proceed from other parts of the cave; and as 
the human bones among them were of the same color and mineraliza- 
tion, there is a strong probability that they were with these bones 
where they lay. Which means that human bones were found also else- 
where in the crevice, a fact having an important bearing on some at 
least of the human bones brought to England with the skull. 

The total of several hundreds of animal bones proved to be of 
very considerable interest, and established in a short time the true 
nature of the bone cave. As they were sorted, bone by bone, it was 
seen first of all that they represented a very large variety of mammals 
with some birds and possibly one or two larger reptiles. The mass 
of the bones belonged to ungulates, but there were also a few carnivy- 
ora. Nearly all the bones, however, showed characteristic old breaks 
and cleavings. The skulls and even the horns were all broken into 
large pieces; the hip bones and shoulder blades were broken much 
and irregularly ; while the long bones, even those of the larger birds, 
were generally broken at or near their middle, in addition to which 
a number of the extremities of the tibia and femur were cleft in 
two longitudinally so as to expose the whole cavity. There were no 
marks of teeth on the bones, not even of the teeth of rodents, and 
little of damage outside the main breaks, But these breaks were 
produced, it was seen again and again, not accidentally or by the 
teeth of animals, but by man; and not by sharp cutting and cleaving 
tools, but evidently by stone implements. 

The lesson was clear. These were the bones of animals utilized for 
food by some native group of men, and the bones had been purposely 
and systematically broken by these men to get at the marrow. The 
horns were broken for the same purpose. Moreover a number of the 
bones showed more or less the effects of fire ; and in several instances 
there were found two or three pieces of what was originally the same 
bone, or again two bones proceeding plainly from the same animal. 
The lower halves of the two humeri of a young hyena, broken in the 
same manner as the other bones, were among the collection. 


All this indicates that the cave had been used for a long time by some 
group of native population as a habitation, or at least as a place where 
parts of animals were brought, cooked or roasted, and eaten. Among 
the bones the writer found a few flakes, and a piece of quartz that 
may have been partly shaped by man. It had a good cutting edge 
which would have been serviceable. The main bone cave may there- 
fore confidently be characterized as a cave of prolonged occasional 
or permanent human habitation in some part of the past, perhaps 
not very far distant. How far will depend on the identification of 
the animal forms whose bones were left in the cave. Bones from the 
outer part of the cave identified previously were, we have seen, prac- 
tically all of forms that are still living. 

The newly found human bones proceed from two skeletons; the 
arm bone is that of a strong adult male; the parietal, rather thin, is 
probably that of an adolescent. They apparently have no connection 
with the “ Rhodesian skull.” But lying as they did among the broken 
animal bones, and in the case of the humerus being fractured cross- 
wise by a blow as was the rule with the animal bones, a suspicion 
is aroused that they may have belonged to human beings who suffered 
the same fate as the animals. The new evidence throws no light either 
upon the racial character or the antiquity of the remarkable cranium. 

The two new human fragments, the mammalian teeth and a se- 
lection of the animal bones were deposited by the writer, together with 
a quartz ball and the above mentioned stone, in the British Museum 
(Natural History), South Kensington, so that they might be with the 
Rhodesian skull and the other specimens collected previously. On 
this occasion the writer was able once more to examine the Rhodesian 
skull and also the other human bones that were received with the 
skull. They are: a portion of a separate upper jaw with two teeth; 
a tibia; two parts of a male adult femur; one shaft of a female 
adult (?) femur ;a large part of a right female (large notch) os coxae; 
a large part of a male ilium (small notch) ; and one sacrum. Of these 
the upper jaw, mineralized, is somewhat different in color from the 
skull. While it is considerably heavier than normal, morphologically 
it is in all ways like the jaw of a modern negro, with modern 
teeth, and bears no resemblance to the corresponding part of the 
Rhodesian skull. The tibia is much more reddish-brown than the 
skull; the female femur is light ochre-yellow ; the male femur pale to 
blackish-brown with thick walls. One of the pelvic parts is near in 


color to the skull, the other is distinct." The male femur is in two 
parts, with the middle portion missing; the breaks are old and both 
fragments show superficial slivering from knocks. 

The writer feels strongly that these bones should not be associated 
with the Rhodesian skull. They are all in every respect of modern 
form and size. They may belong to the contents of other parts of the 
cave, or at least to entirely different human beings. All, with the 
exception of the tibia, show old breaks, which may be an indication 
of cannibalism. At least it may be said that it would be unsafe, before 
further evidence may throw more light upon the matter, to build on 
the basis of these bones any conclusions as to the skeletal characters 
of the original owner of the Rhodesian skull. 

As to studies of the Rhodesian remains, Dr. A. Smith Wood- 
ward gave two preliminary notices of the find,’ and notes on the 
skull were published later by Eugene Dubois,’ Sera,* Martin,’ Ham- 

*In this connection the writer is glad to print the following letter referring 
to something that may, but apparently does not wholly, account for the differ- 
ences in color and consistency of the bones (particularly one of the femurs) in 
question : 

Department of Geology, British Museum (Natural History), 
2 March, 1926. 
Dear Dr. HrviicKa: 

I have just had occasion to read your letter of the 12th November, 1925, ad- 
dressed to Dr. Bather. In it you state that the skeletal remains from Broken 
Hill differ from the skull and from each other in colour and state of mineralisa- 
tion. May I point out that this is not really the case, and that the reason for 
varying colour is a difference in method of treatment by the preparators? The 
skull was painted over with a thin solution of shellac soon after it was received 
here; this darkened the colour a little. The remainder of the bones, with the 
exception of the two innominates, were soaked in “ wulfite” about 12 months 
ago. This caused the dark colour and also increased the weight very considerably. 
The innominates have not been treated in any way; they represent the original 
condition of all the others. 

Yours truly, 
(Signed ) ArtHur T. Hopwoop. 

* Woodward, Arthur Smith, A New Cave Man from Rhodesia, South Africa. 
Nature, Vol. 108, pp. 371-372, 1921; The Problem of the Rhodesian Fossil Man. 
Sci. Progress, Vol. 16, pp. 574-579, 1922. 

“Dubois, Eugene, On the Cranial Form of Homo neanderthalensis and of 
Pithecanthropus erectus Determined by Mechanical Factors. Konink. Akad. 
Wetensch. Amsterdam, Vol. 24, pp. 313-332, 1922. 

*Sera, G. L., Rivista di Biologia, Vol. 4, p. 2, 1922. 

* Martin, R., Der neue Schadelfund von Rhodesia. Mannus, Z. f. Vorgeschr., 


bruch,’ and Boule, while Elliot Smith,* commented mainly on the 
brain. The most complete account of the specimen so far published, 
however, is that of Sir Arthur Keith in the recent second edition of 
his “Antiquity of Man”’;* but unfortunately it includes some of the 
misinformation about the circumstances of the discovery (p. 382, 
upper paragraph) with its consequences. 

The writer did not wish to anticipate the eventual description of 
the specimen by his English colleagues. But he has been kindly al- 
lowed to take a few measurements on the original, and these measure- 
ments, with those previously published by others, are given in the 
table on page 130. The specimen is difficult to measure, which, with 
instrumental imperfections, doubtless accounts for some of the dif- 
ferences in individual determinations. 


The Rhodesian find of 1921 is more complex than has been gener- 
ally appreciated. Due to the absence on the spot of any scientific 
man exact details of the find have not been ascertained. Of what was 
learned but little was recorded, and of the rest much has since become 
confused. The precise circumstances of the discovery are therefore, 
and must remain, deficient. 

The main part of the bone cavern was evidently for a long time a 
habitat or feasting place of late Africans, bushmen or negro. The 
larger bones were none of them brought in by animals, but were the 
remains of the repasts of the black man. A very large majority were 
broken for the marrow. Similarly broken human bones suggest 
cannibalism. There were apparently no human burials in the cave. 
How the strange Rhodesian skull got in is inexplainable. 

The skull was found alone in the lowest and most remote part of 
the cave, some distance beneath considerable accumulations of soft 
pure lead ore. There was neither lower jaw nor skeleton. One human 
bone, the tibia, and parts of a lion’s skull, it is well established, lay 
from a few to about ten feet from and at a lower level than the skull. 

*Hambruch, P., Der Schadel von Broken Hill Mine in Nord Rhodesia. Arch. 
{. Anthrop., Vol. 19, pp. 52-56, 1923. 

* Boule, M., Fossil Man, Edinburgh, pp. 481-486, 1923. 

*Smith, G. Elliot, Brit. Med. Journ., 1922, I, 197; Atlantic Monthly, Apr., 

“London, Vol. 2, pp. 377-393, 5 illustrations, 1925. 

See also “ The Sufferings of the Rhodesian Man,” Lancet, 1922, pp. 1206-7; 
and Siffre—“ L’ineptitude dentaire des hommes préhistoriques,” La Semaine den- 
taire, Vol. 7, Nos. 12 and 13, pp. 300-308, 322-328, 1925. 


As to the other human bones deposited at the British Museum with 
the skull, and those now added, all that may be said is that they 
proceed from several skeletons of modern size and form; that some 
of them, at least, probably came from other parts of the cave; and 
that there is no proof, and but a remote possibility, of any of them 
belonging to the skull. 

The skull itself is positively not the skull of any now known Afri- 
can types of man or their normal variants. Neither is it any known 
pathological monstrosity, such as gigantism or leontiasis. It is a most 
remarkable specimen of which the age, provenience, history, and 
nature are still anthropological puzzles. 

Morphologically the skull is frequently associated now with the 
Neanderthal type of Europe. This may be fundamentally correct, 
but only to that extent. In its detailed characteristics the specimen 
in some respects is inferior, in others superior to anything known as 
yet of the Neanderthal man. 

Meanwhile mining operations at Broken Hill are proceeding. They 
will gradually do away with what may still remain of the former bone 
crevice; and they will soon, if they have not already, involve the 
second kopje with its crevices. All this work should be intently 
watched, for any day it may uncover new evidence of much im- 


While the preceding was in preparation the long expected British 
Museum report on the Rhodesian remains appeared. It is a compound 
report, by 8 authors, with an introduction by Dr. Bather.* The skeletal 
remains are not described by Sir Arthur Smith Woodward, but by the 
zoologist of the Museum, Mr. Pycraft;* while the brain, as seen 
from an endocranial cast, is ably studied by Professor Elliot Smith. 

Dr. Bather’s succinct preface and introduction, in view of the 
history of the find as published in 1925-26 and recorded in the pre- 
ceding pages, leaves the student unsatisfied. 

* Rhodesian Man arid Associated Remains. British Museum, London, 1928. 
Preface and Introduction by F. A. Bather, pp. iii-iv, ix-xiii. Description of the 
Skull and Other Human Remains from Broken Hill, by W. P. Pycraft, pp. 1-51, 
3 pls., 11 figs. Endocranial Cast Obtained from the Rhodesian Skull, by G. Elliot 
Smith, pp. 52-58, 7 figs. The Pathology of the Left Temporal Bone of the Rhode- 
sian Skull, by M. Yearsley, pp. 59-63, 1 fig. The Teeth of Rhodesian Man, by 
J. T. Carter, pp. 64-65, 1 fig. The Associated Stone Implements, by R. A. Smith, 
pp. 66-60, 2 figs.; and, The Fauna, by A. T. Hopwood, Dorothea M. A. Bate, 
and W. E. Swinton, pp. 69-75, 1 fig. 

* The essential measurements in Mr. Pycraft’s account should tally with those 
of the writer, for they were made jointly (Nov., 1927). 



Mr. Pycraft has done a very conscientious piece of work. If, as 
appears from the reviews of his work, his conclusions are not meeting 
with favor, it is mainly because he has chosen to associate organically 
with the Rhodesian skull remains of which no man can say with full 
confidence that they belong to it; because he has seen more in the 
morphology of these additional remains than others can see; and 
because he makes of the Rhodesian man a new, genus (‘‘ Cyphan- 
thropus”). These are all grievous sins which may or may not be 
outweighed by the painstaking work on the skull. However this may 
be, it will be but proper to quote Mr. Pycraft’s main conclusions 
on the cranium. They are: 

Highly specialised in some particulars, this skull must nevertheless be re- 
garded as of a relatively low type, having a definite resemblance to the skulls 
of Neanderthal Man, with which race it has affinities. 

Its specialised characters are perhaps most marked in the enormous supra- 
orbital torus, whose likeness to that of the Gorilla ‘seems to have been some- 
what over-emphasised. The distance between the styloid process and the mastoid, 
and the greatly developed nuchal plate, are apparently correlated with the very 
large, broad, and flat face. Similarly, the height of the maxilla, a markedly 
simian character, is closely correlated with the sub-nasal length. The face was 
mesognathous, and not prognathous as would at first appear. Others have already 
commented on the great size of the palate, but it seems to have escaped attention 
that this palate was once even larger. The reduction in size began with the decay 
of the teeth. As the alveoli closed up, the palate shortened. 

When the contours of the Rhodesian and Gibraltar skulls are superposed there 
is seen to be an undoubted likeness between the two. Similar resemblances be- 
tween this skull and that from La Chapelle further justify the suggested affinities 
with Neanderthal Man. They seem, however, to be derived from a common stock 
rather than directly related. The superposed contours of the Rhodesian skull 
and of a skull from St. Edmond’s Priory, selected at random as a type of the 
modern skull, brings out two important features. It shows that the frontal fossa 
is much longer in modern Man, and that the cranial cavity has greatly increased 
in height. 

When this skull is orientated on the Frankfort plane, the low forehead and the 
rapidly sloping parietal roof at once attract attention. In longitudinal section it 
will be noticed that the floor of the posterior cranial fossa was essentially as in 
modern skulls. The clivus is steep, though not more so than in many modern 
skulls, but it is longer, thus raising the dorsum sellae and the pituitary fossa 
some 8 mm. higher than they are in the St. Edmond’s Priory skull. 

There are other features which seem to indicate that Rhodesian Man was 
nearer to the Chimpanzee and Gorilla than was Neanderthal Man. Thus, if a 
longitudinal section of the face of the Gorilla or Chimpanzee be examined, it will 
be found that a line drawn at right angles to the alveolar border, and immedi- 
ately behind the last molar, will pass upwards just behind the torus, and in front 
of the cerebral cavity. This is true also of the Rhodesian skull. But in Nean- 
derthal Man this line cuts through the fore-part of the anterior fossa, and in 


modern Man it cuts through the fossa about mid-way between the glabella and 
the bregma; sometimes almost at the bregma. 

The Rhodesian skull, on the other hand, recalls Neanderthal Man, and espe- 
cially the Gibraltar race, in the width and form of the nuchal plate, the supra- 
occipital region of the skull; but it is much larger. 

Some further, and very significant, features are brought out when the Rhode- 
sian skull is compared with that of the Chimpanzee and Gorilla, orientated on 
the meato-nasion line..... 

The meato-lambda angle (46°) of the Rhodesian skull is noteworthy. In 
modern human skulls it varies between 50° and 60°. A further peculiarity is the 
fact that the meato-lambda line, produced downwards and forwards, passes 
through the maxilla to the prosthion. In all other human skulls it passes be- 
neath the jaw. .... 

Finally, the thickness of the skull-wall in Rhodesian Man was not greater 
than in many existing races. Considering the many simian features of the skull 
this is noteworthy. In the anthropoids, owing to the compression of the inter- 
mediate layer of cancellated tissue, the cranial wall is markedly thinner. From 
the tusk-like canines of the great anthropoids one would have supposed that a 
thick skull-wall would have been necessary. 

An additional interesting paragraph is found in Mr. Pycraft’s 
account under “Affinities” (p. 48) ; it deserves to be quoted in full: 

There are differences of opinion on the affinities of Rhodesian man. Sir Arthur 
Smith Woodward regards him “as a primitive species of true man, in which 
a slightly incomplete development of the brain is accompanied by an enlargement 
instead of a reduction and refinement of the face.” That is to say, he does not 
regard him as Mousterian. Prof. Elliot Smith on the other hand remarks that, 
“in the bones found in the Broken Hill mine, we have the remains of a type of 
mankind definitely more primitive than all the known members of the Human 
Family, with the exception only of Pithecanthropus and Eoanthropus.’ Sir 
Arthur Keith regards him as near the ancestor of Neanderthal and modern Man; 
“he has assumed too much of the modern type to serve this purpose [1. e., to be 
regarded as the ancestor of both]. His just place seems to be in the modern stem 
soon after this stem had broken away from the Neanderthal line.” The strik- 
ing likeness between the Rhodesian and Gibraltar skulls, and the undoubted like- 
ness to the La Chapelle skull, is convincing evidence of a common relationship, if 
not of a common descent. This is expressed, with slight differences, by all 
three of the authorities quoted. Rhodesian man, then, is to be regarded as an 
independent development of the nascent Neanderthal stock, an opinion which 
would explain both the resemblances to and the differences from the Neanderthal 

Mr. Pycraft’s excuse for associating the tibia, pelvis, etc., with the 
skull, is, finally, as follows (p. 49): 

It may be urged that there can be no certainty that the remains of the axial 
and appendicular skeleton and the skull are all parts of the one individual. This 
is doubtless true, but, when the outstanding features of these several parts are 
critically studied, it is found that they display a reciprocal inter-relationship so 
intimate that any attempt to dissociate the skull from the remaining parts of the 
skeleton must do violence to all ordinary rules of evidence and inference. 



Professor Elliot Smith shows the volume of the brain of the 
Rhodesian skull to have been but 1280 cc., which is markedly smaller 
than in any of the Neanderthalers with the probable exception of the 
Gibraltar female. 

Fic. t0o—Rhodesian man: endocranial cast, top view. (After G. Elliot Smith, 
1928. ) 

The very successful cast shows the brain to have been in general 
very definitely human, related to that of the Neanderthalers, and 
superior to both that of the Pithecanthropus and Eoanthropus [ ? skull 
too defective]. 

The general contour of the brain and the peculiarities of its form and propor- 

tions suggest the kinship of Rhodesian man with the Neanderthal species. The 
great deficiencies in development of the prefrontal, upper parietal, and inferior 


1928. ) 



Fic. 12.—Rhodesian man: endocranial cast, occipital portion. (After G. Elliot 
Smith, 1928.) 


temporal areas, however, clearly differentiate it from the Neanderthal type and 
reveal a condition of affairs definitely more primitive. The defective development 
of the brain cannot be the result of a secondary degradation, because its features 
conform so strictly to the primitive type. .... It can be said with confidence 
that the Rhodesian cast reveals features definitely more primitive than those of 
the Neanderthal species. 

The maximum length of the cerebral hemisphere is 17.0 cm., and 
the maximum breadth 13.5 cm. (at the posterior extremity of the 
temporal region) ; Cerebral Breadth-Length Index 79.4. 

The details given are rather meagre and relate principally to the 
apparent localized deficiencies. “It is this defective development of 
certain areas that differentiates the Rhodesian brain from that of the 
Neanderthal series, and, with various cranial characters, justifies the 
creation of a new species [genus?] of a more primitive rank.” 


In the anterior part of the left mastoid are the apparent marks 
of mastoiditis, and a small hole appears in the left temporal squama. 
Dr. Yearsley summarizes the results of his study as follows: 

The conclusions to be drawn from a study of this remarkable specimen of 
prehistoric pathology must necessarily be hypothetical. The most plausible hy- 
pothesis that I can form is that the subject was a sufferer for a considerable 
period from chronic sepsis, as evidenced by the state of the teeth and alveolar 
border and the fact that the tibia shows signs of periarthritis or arthritis. The 
chronic septic condition of the mouth led to suppurative middle ear disease, com- 
plicated with mastoid abscess. That this abscess broke through the cortex at 
the base of the mastoid and tracked upwards into the temporal fossa along the 
line of least resistance, and that it broke later through the tip of the process, 
tracked down the neck into the thorax and thus caused death. 

It is strongly presumptive that the perforation B is not an instance of primi- 
tive “trepanning,’ but was due to a wound inflicted by some sharp instrument 
during life and was not the cause of death. 


Concerning the teeth, Dr. Carter gives but one conclusion, which is 
that: “‘ The dentition is essentially human.” 

He gives such few measurements of the teeth as their diseased 
or worn condition permits. 


Dr. Smith’s note on these specimens is brief, the material offering 
but little variety. The essentials of his report are so succinct that they 
may be given in full. He states: 

The largest chert flake is roughly oval and three inches long ; another is shaped 
rather like a Le Moustier “ point,” and a third (honey-coloured) looks like a 


slice from the foot of a plane, to produce a new cutting-edge. A stone ball like 
figure 228 has slight facets which are bruised like the rest; and there are four 
imperfect spherical hammerstones of quartz, the largest having a diameter of 
3.4 inches. The largest piece of milky quartz (3.2 inches) is probably due to 
natural fracture; but there are six broad flakes, subtriangular, clearly of human 
origin, the largest being 2.3 inches; and five that may be classed as blades, with 
the side-edges nearly parallel. Two other specimens appear to be pointed ends 
of flake implements, the larger being an equilateral triangle, 0.6 inch thick at 
the center. A flake of clear quartz, 1.8 inches long, has a calcareous deposit, and 
a fragment of fossil bone resembles the butt of a thin-butted celt, heavily striated 
and rubbed smooth in places. A pointed granitic stone of triangular section, 
8 inches long, seems to be battered at the pointed end, but was probably not 
shaped by man, though the butt has a smooth and rounded edge. ... . 

Mr. Franklin White, who collected some of the specimens under consideration, 
has himself contributed some notes to the Proceedings of the Rhodesia Scien- 
tific Association, Vol. IX (published 1910), on further discoveries in the cave; 
and enumerates bone implements and tusks as well as quartz artifacts from 
I inch to 4 inches in length. The material is described as semi-opaque white, not 
at all suitable for implements, and not produced in the locality, but brought from 
a distance with the large rounded quartzite pebbles. The most common type of 
implement, he says, is a leaf-shaped lance-head, with the butts badly finished off. 
Ridged flakes were abundant, and one was found of transparent quartz. Several 
small flakes could have been used as arrow-heads, but there was only one round- 
scraper in his series. No bone ornaments such as discs or beads were noticed; 
and the broken bones and implements were found throughout 18 feet of filling. 
with one piece of semi-vitreous clinker that proved the use of fire by the primi- 
tive cave-dwellers. 

Upon the writer, who. collected and brought to London some of 
these specimens, the material makes no impression of antiquity. It 
is to be compared with recent South African stone industries, rather 
than with any of the paleolithic industries in Europe. There is no 
possibility of a definite association of the specimens with the skull. 


Mr. Hopwood has identified the mammals of the Broken Hill cave. 
He tells us as follows: 

The study of the mammalian bones found at Broken Hill was undertaken in 
the hope that they might afford some evidence as to the age of the human remains 
found in the cave. It seemed reasonable to suppose that, if the contents of the 
cavern were of any degree of antiquity, there might be found portions of animals 
which are extinct, or, at any rate, of species which are not at present represented 
in the fauna of Rhodesia. This hope has been realised only in part. The cave 
fauna is composed of living forms with the exception of Rhinoceros whitet Chubb 
and a new species of Serval cat. 

To which he adds: 

In considering the significance of the Cave fauna of Broken Hill there are 
two things to be kept in mind. First, that it is impossible to determine the rela- 


tive levels occupied in the deposit by relying on the degree to which the bones 
are mineralized. For example, the human remains, from the very lowest part of 
the cave, are only slightly impregnated with ores of lead and zinc, whereas bones 
of Hyaena and Wart Hog, from an unknown horizon, are so charged with 
mineral matter that they give a clear note on being sharply struck. Secondly, it is 
also well to remember that the African continental plateau is of extraordinary 
stability, and that it has been a land area from very early times. Furthermore, 
the climate has always been tropical or sub-tropical, at least to the south of 
Egypt. Hence, apart from possible changes in the rainfall, conditions of life 
have been comparatively fixed and the fauna is not likely to have altered in 
character so rapidly as in other regions, Europe and North America for in- 
stance, where great changes in the climate and geography have taken place in 
comparatively recent times. For these reasons it is practically impossible at 
present to estimate the age of African cave deposits by means of the fossil mam- 
mals. The fact that two extinct forms are known proves nothing. It is becom- 
ing ever more apparent that the mammal-bearing horizons of Central Africa are 
not comparable in age with those of Europe, and that in dealing with them it is 
useless to apply European standards. On the evidence of the associated mam- 
malian fauna there is no reason to suppose that the human remains are of any- 
thing but recent date. 

The bird remains, identified by Miss Bate, are few in number ; 
“it is probable that all the remains represent species still found in 
the locality.” 

“The reptilian remains associated with the Rhodesian skull are 
few in number and belong to species still existing in the locality.” 

(W. E. Swinton). 

Since the British Museum has published its report on the Rhodesian 
man, no objection can be had to an additional description. Thanks 
to Dr. Smith Woodward and later to Dr. Bather, the writer has been 
able repeatedly to examine and measure the originals (1922, 1923, 
1927). The last measurements (Nov., 1927), to insure accuracy 
and agreement, were made by well-tested instruments in the presence 
of Messrs. Pycraft, Bather, and Hopwood of the British Museum, 

and have been utilized by Mr. Pycraft. 


The skull is monstrous; its frontal and most of the facial parts 
exceed in primitiveness every other known specimen of early man. 
The skullcap, on the other hand, from behind the frontal ridges is 
of a decidedly higher grade equalling in many respects and in some 
even exceeding those of the more typical Neanderthal crania. 

The subject was plainly a very powerful male, probably over 40 
years of age. The skull is in no way pathological, though showing 


some diseased conditions; and it cannot be diagnosed as a rever- 
sion. It represents a distinct crude variety of man, which strangely 
combines many ancient, even pre-Neanderthal conditions with others 
that are relatively modern. It could represent, conceivably, a very 
brutish individual development of the upper Neanderthal or the post- 
Neanderthal period. 

The most striking features of the skull are its huge supraorbital 
ridges. They are not far from twice as stout as in the Neanderthalers. 
Moreover, they are stouter in their middle third, especially in the 
region corresponding to that of the supraorbital foramen. They 
measure near glabella, 21 mm.; in the region of the supraorbital 
foramen, R. 23, L. 24 mm.; and above the outer third of the orbit, 
R. 21, L. 20 mm.; maximum transverse diameter, 14 cm. The 
external biorbital diameter, between the outermost parts of the 
fronto-malar sutures, is only 13.4 cm., showing the amount by which 
the tori bulge over these articulations. No such huge welts have ever 
been seen in any other human specimen, nor even, if their thickness 
alone is considered, in the anthropoid apes. They constitute a huge 
exaggeration of this ancient primate masculine character. 

Yet these ridges are already human rather than anthropoid in 
character. They do not form such a transverse promontory above the 
orbits with but a moderate median depression, as they do in the 
chimpanzee or the gorilla, but show a very marked dip downward 
at the glabella, approaching thus somewhat nearer to the condition 
seen in adult male orangs. Moreover while the surface of this supra- 
orbital promontory faces forward or nearly so in the Rhodesian 
skull passing from the interorbital process outward, it becomes more 
and more everted until in its distal portion it looks considerably 
upward. In this respect it differs from the ridges of both the apes 
and the Neanderthalers, where such eversion is not present. 

The glabella is carried considerably forward and is convex above ; 
and posterior to the glabella is a broad depression from side to side, 
having a distant resemblance to this region in the female gorilla or 
chimpanzee ; but there is no antero-posterior depression, the mid-line 
of the very low frontal continuing without, or with but a trace of, 
a sagging down to the glabella. Due to the arching of the ridges there 
is, however, a shallow antero-posterior depression above the outer 
two-thirds of the ridges; if the forehead was higher this depression 
would be doubtless even more marked, as it is in most of the Neander- 
thal skulls. 

The slope of the forehead is as great as it is in some of the apes. 
It is diminished somewhat by a fairly marked metopic ridge which, 
stouter at the lower portion of the frontal squama, gradually broadens 


until at the bregma it forms a low elevation 35 mm. in diameter. 
It raises the bregma region to quite a marked elevation, which ex- 
tends, dwindling gradually, to over 20 mm. beyond the coronal suture. 
This formation recalls strongly the similar feature on the skull of 
the Pithecanthropus. 

The frontal bone of the Rhodesian man is also relatively very 
narrow, and that even posteriorly (diam. frontal min., 9.9; diam. 
frontal max., 12.3 cm.; index, 80.5). Antero-posteriorly the frontal 
bone was relatively small, though appearing larger through the supra- 
orbital protrusion. In its great slope, in its marked metopic ridge, 
narrowness, and also in its anterior flare and relative smallness as 
a whole the Rhodesian frontal approaches closely the frontal of 
the Pithecanthropus; though the ridges in the Rhodesian skull are 
much the heavier. 

Viewed from the top the skull presents a long ovoid with a 
narrower end anteriorly, much as in Spy No. I and especially in the 
La Quina adult. The parietal eminences, however, are diffuse and 
located more about the center of the bone, hence less posteriorly and 
inferiorly than in the typical Neanderthalers. From side to side the 
parietal region is fairly oval (approaching circular), with but a trace 
of an elevation along the sagittal suture. Antero-posteriorly the 
outline of the skull shows the very sloping forehead, appearing some- 
what higher than it is through the metopic ridge, followed by the ele- 
vation of the bregma due to the same metopic ridge. A slight post- 
bregmatic depression is followed by an elevation at about the middle 
of the sagittal region, then another mild depression to the lambda, 
a slight bulge, and a medium convexity of the upper part of the 
occipital squama; below which is a pronounced transverse occipital 
torus, and this is followed by a practically simian flat planum occipi- 
tale. The skullcap as a whole is quite large and impresses one as 

The sutures of the skull, for the most part are, curiously, well 
knitted, especially the sagittal and coronal, coming nearer in this 
respect to modern man than those of the various Neanderthal skulls. 
The serration of the lambdoid is submedium, as compared to modern 
human standards. 

Laterally the frontal and the parietals show uncommonly strong, 
though not excessively high, impressions of the temporal muscles. 
The nearest approach of the upper temporal line to the sagittal suture 
is approximately 4.8 on the right, and 4.1 cm. on the left side. 
Where the ridges pass the coronal suture, the bones of the skull show 
a fairly marked bulge, from which the temporal lines are deflected 
considerably upward. The temporal region is about as full as in 


modern skulls of similar cranial index. The temporal bones are rela- 
tively well developed. The mastoid is much larger than in the Ne- 
anderthal male skulls; it is as long and large as in modern strong 
male crania, but its inferior extremity, instead of being more or less 
pointed, is bulky and dull. Anteriorly, just behind the auditory 
meatus, it shows a rather large lesion (mastoiditis ?). The base of 
the zygoma is broad (3.2 cm.) ; but the zygoma itself is not excessively 
heavy. The external auditory meatus is in size, shape, and axis like 
that of modern man. 

The occipital region resembles in the main that of the Neander- 
thalers, though it is not so relatively broad superiorly as in the latter 
and is somewhat fuller beneath the lambdoid suture, approaching 
thus somewhat more that of modern man. But the transverse torus 
is much more developed than that in any other early skull; passing 
completely across the occipital, there are traces of its prolongation on 
each side along the lambdoid suture to the region of the mastoid. 
Portions of such a torus as highly developed are found in primitive 
modern skulls (there are three such in the collections in the U. S. 
National Museum) ; but a complete ridge of this nature cannot be 
matched either in recent or in early crania. 

Below the ridge there is a modern bilateral concavity from above 
downward, though slightly convex from side to side; and this passes 
on to the very moderately convex (on each side) broad plane below. 
These conditions approach markedly those in adult gorillas, differing 
much from those of recent man and also from those in the chimpan- 
zee and orang. The conditions resemble but exceed those in the 
Neanderthal skulls in which these parts are preserved. 

The bones of the skull, as seen on the right side, a part of which 
is missing, are seen to be strong, yet not excessively thick. The thick- 
ness of the right parietal squama ranges from 6 to 10 mm. This is 
somewhat less than in the thickest Neanderthals, and is equalled in 
some massive, non-pathological primitive skulls of today. 

The face—tThe orbits are large, deep and of irregular angular 
outline; yet they are more human than anthropoid. The upper 
borders, in particular, are stout and uneven, The interorbital septum 
is very stout (min. diam. 35 mm.). 

Dimensions of the orbits : ee oe 
ICIS hE ica tes tothe oe eee ee Cote Sloe Se eer ee 4.0 3.9 
Breadthiwers ec. aes Wester ee sekloae trac ee ee 4.6 4.5 
Mn Oxia i Be here fates Lib ahiveke cg ey oO OE 86.9 86.7 

"From slightly above dacryon; at dacryon the borders of the orbits are slightly 
closer together. 


Through the heavy arches the planes of the orbits are concave 
from above downward, the upper part being more forward than in 
modern skulls; and the plane is also somewhat more inclined out- 
wards and backwards than it is in recent crania. This is much as 
in the Neanderthalers. The nasal bones are of about medium breadth 
but rather long, and the nasal bridge was of but very moderate 
height. The line from glabella to the end of the nasals is regularly 
and fairly deeply concave. The malar bones, while stout, are relatively 
low for a maie; and they show but very moderate prominence for- 
ward. As in the Neanderthalers they have broad and stout frontal 
processes, the outer surface of which points appreciably more out- 
ward (or less forward) than in most modern crania. This, curiously, 
is not an anthropoid character, for in the adult anthropoids the 
surface of these processes points nearly directly forward. 

The zygomatic process was somewhat narrower than the frontal. 
This again is nearer the present human than an anthropoid condition. 
Another plainiy human feature is the antero-posterior diameter of | 
the malars which, relatively short in the anthropoids, especially the 
gorilla and orang, is here of about the same relatively greater length 
as in modern human skulls. The masseteric border, while much 
stouter than in modern skulls, shows no protrusion forward and 
downward anteriorly, so that there is an even line from the maxilla 
to the zygoma. The lower borders of the orbits in the Rhodesian 
skull are relatively higher, in relation to the nasal parts, than they 
are in modern crania, In this the skull is nearer to that of the 
chimpanzee than are modern human skulls (in the orang and es- 
pecially the gorilla the orbits are still relatively higher). The 
Neanderthalers show more or less similarity in this respect to the 
Rhodesian man. The cause of this relatively high position of the 
orbits is the great development of the maxilla, with an accompanying 
prolongation of the nose, in these primitive skulls. 

The zygomatic arches are of but moderate width for such a 
huge skull, and the aperture for the temporal muscle is not large, 
being even slightly smaller than in some modern skulls. This is com- 
pletely different from anthropoid conditions, where this aperture is 
invariably very large. The whole zygomatic arch is short, about as 
in modern man, and widely different again from that of the anthro- 
poids. The suborbital surface of the maxillae and especially the 
frontal portions of these bones are full, approaching closely those of 
the Neanderthalers. The naso-frontal portions of the maxillae are as 
if moderately blown out from behind. The middle portion of the 
maxillary surface shows a very mild depression on the right, none on 
the left—a merest trace of the modern suborbital (canine) fossa. 


The nasal aperture is somewhat ape-like. It is broad and rather 
rounded in outline, as in some chimpanzees and gorillas. The nasal 
spine is bifid, dull, and but moderately developed, not more so than 
in some anthropoids; and the borders of the notches show a dull 
grooving and ridging rising internally to beyond the middle of the 
lateral borders of the aperture—a simian (especially gorilloid) con- 
dition. As a whole the aperture ranges itself with those of the Gi- 
braltar, La Chapelle, and some other Neanderthaler skulls. 

The upper alveolar process is relatively enormous. It is higher 
and broader than in the anthropoids, and higher and broader than 
in any human skull seen thus far. The height from the alveolar point 
(lowest point between median incisors) to the lowest point of the 
nasal border on each side is 37 mm., while the maximum external 
breadth of the dental arch (discounting all pathological swellings ) 
is 80 mm. or slightly over. There is a marked facial and especially 
alveolar prognathism. 

The palate, dental arch, and teeth—vThe palate is very high, 
spacious, broad in front and close to U-shaped. The alveolar process 
is strong, yet not excessively stout; it could be matched in strong 
male modern skulls. The teeth were 16 in number, regularly dis- 
posed ; but their condition, both morphologically and as to preserva- 
tion, is most interesting. The teeth are moderately macrodont by our 
present scale. The rear teeth are moderately, the frontal teeth mark- 
edly, worn. The canines were evidently as in modern man—their 
roots are but little stouter than those of the adjacent pre-molars. The 
molars show a marked diminution of both M 3 as in more recent 

Pathologically, the teeth show a unique condition for primitive 
skulls, viz., extensive caries. At least nine of the teeth had ad- 
vanced decay, in half of the cases nothing remaining but a small shell 
of the tooth. The destruction is such that there is no other explana- 
tion. In addition there were some root abscesses and probably some 
pyorrhea. On both sides externally in the molar region there are 
irregular hyperostoses which, with some on the lingual side, may be 
of the ordinary strengthening variety, but may in part also be patho- 

The posterior nares and the surrounding parts are entirely human, 
except that the nares are somewhat more oblique (lower borders more 
forward) than they are in man of today. 

The base ——The basal parts show a number of points of interest. 
The basilar process is relatively short and flat, and shows anteriorly 
a well marked pharyngeal fossa. The petrous portions show decidedly 


primitive conditions. They are bulky; they extend fully forward, 
leaving practically no middle lacerated foramina; and they are fully 
on the level of the surrounding parts, as in the anthropoid apes and 
in the most primitive recent crania." The styloid processes, generally 
strongly developed in the anthropoid apes, are very moderate—more 
so than in some modern crania, and there is a small styloid process. 

The foramen ovale is rather narrow and situated in the very base 
of the pterygoid processes, differing somewhat from that of modern 
skulls. The preglenoid eminence is lower and broader than in modern 
skulls, approaching correspondingly the condition in the anthropoids. 
The glenoid fossa is broad transversely and straight ; it does not slope 
upward and outward as in many of the Neanderthalers. Mesially 
and posteriorly the boundaries of the fossa are considerably like those 
in modern man and not as elevated as in most of the Neanderthal 
skulls. The foramen magnum is ovoid in shape (rather conical 
behind) and not much above the medium modern size. Its inclina- 
tion is such that a prolongation of its antero-posterior axis would 
pass through not far from the middle of the nasal aperture, which is 
much like that in not a few modern skulls ; in anthropoids, as is well 
known, this line passes as a rule more or less beneath the dental arch. 

The condyles, very moderate for a skull of this size and strength, 
are relatively somewhat narrow. The inferior curved line is repre- 
sented by a marked torus. The digastric groove is deep but not more 
so than in some modern crania. 

Comment.—The study of the specimen leaves an impression of 
anamorphism. It is a combination of pre-Neanderthaloid, Neander- 
thaloid, and recent characters. It is not a Neanderthaler ; it represents 
a different race, a different variety. The specimen does not fit with 
its surroundings. It does not fit at all with the fine, long, essentially 
modern-negro-like tibia. It does not fit with any of the other human 
remains saved from the cave, skeletal or cultural. It does not fit with 
anything, the negro in particular, found thus far in Africa. 

It seems impossible to conceive the specimen as a reversion. Re- 
versions tend as a rule to manifest themselves in individual characters 
or in small association. The primitive conditions of the Rhodesian 
skull greatly surpass all this. It seems equally impossible to regard the 
strain of man represented by the skull as a survival to recent time. 
There is nothing in anthropological knowledge that would support 
such an assumption. Yet the diminishing third molars, the shape and 

*See Hrdlicka, A., Anthropometry, p. 116, Wistar Institute, Phila., 1920; also 
Science, Vol. 13, p. 300, 1901. 


size of the other teeth, the extensive caries, and other points, speak 
strongly against hoary antiquity. 

The Rhodesian skull is a tantalizing specimen to the student, who is 
wholly at a loss as to just where it belongs taxonomically or chrono- 
logically. It is a comet of man’s prehistory. 

(HrpricKa, 1927) 

Vault: cm. 
1 Length'*max, (e-max.), with*occipital/torust.20-< sence eee ote 20.6 
ta length maxs (¢-max!)) discounting torus... 00): 2-6-1 mo cee ke 20.2 
2 Tength max. fromophryon= with! tonus.c-....0+- «sso 19.2 
2a Length max. from ophryon, discounting torus..................... 18.8 
Breadth: (tras: © ceyshoveesjcystsy cuore) es atonctcyencsssiolsonetsheueenercueioheaieieyoueve a sueneiey sete 14.5-14.6 

Gramalfindexs (Cwatherasleneth) scree eee 71.8 

(with 2a lengthy)" 2.8 leas eictteras Taek 


Basion=bregima., vacsper cess cio cuore eles stotel evel ononsreteer 13.0 

E 2 H XX 100 ey 

Mean height index fel et! Figiace e 74.9 

Hereht-breadtht ind exauaeriereeciteircienstereieeneaetoreers 89.7 
Endocranial basion-bregma height...........:..-+-.+-- 12.0 
Diam-crontale min sey eee one acco me eee 9.9 
Diam:-trontaliamaxs | aecscee eee ee ere rate 123 

Frontal index jee Sse acca eeeeeone 80.5 

Pie max 

‘hhickness sof srightepartetalean spose eee eee 6-10 mm. 
Glabella: to nearest endocranial point. .......-.--..0..- 3.4 

Face and Base: 

INasion-alveolar points helght wesc oer ace electrics 0.3 
Diami-hizyscomaticumaxw peas Gere noe eee eee eee near 14.8 
Bacialtindexssuppemencansr a asecreerrnerenee 63.0 
Subnasal point-alveolar point height.................- By) 
(a) Basion=nasion diam: 2. ss cement cee er ree II.1 
(b) PBaston-subnasallpointe sone eo eee ee 10.1 
(c) Basion-prealveolar point (most anterior point on 
upperalveolarsprocess)) Hoe eee eee 11.8 
Ractalwangle: ccrasoeumicaticc a ace Cee 63° 
INI VeOlatas an le saree stale More loi eae 54° 
Right sn ne i ee SS eae ee 4.0 
AGERE cihad Richa siden ere a Seale hee ae 3.9 
Beth Gigs Sis. SeSoic solvate, Dee ie Oineieen eee eek eee toe 4.6 
TB ORC Se ctusve sracamebes caspanationd « eames at TO ANCOR ee ree 4.5 
indescinee ce Se Aen right 0.95 
Met iG crane left 86.7 

* Ophryon can be determined but approximately as a point just above what is 
plainly the forestructure and not yet the forehead. 


Nose: cin. 
ENG cL Cam NTS TEE IUS Act Sra acohereTeione vais Nucven evar csakeingaleyeiava Sone 5.8 
ECAC Lime e Meee Retest eee treetc ote ore elaiaonkrayataysuanateveonescilewe BT 

Nee sre iere cheheterer scene soeralal ol h.5- ce, shal dries lahacehe ire o0\< 53.4 
Upper Alveolar Arch: 
TS extn rt bata rereratsceseeste re tera oka sods ene) seals okay Siete ie. alah oer sl avecaausadbis Seceusns 7.0 
Breadth max. (without excrescences)..............06- 8.0 
Nitidexcamnn CE BXGTOO) Become tee lsicisoe einer oreicue 87.5 
Ralatewherchtemaxe siistiback Of Miueacnn). «crs series 1.8 
WMentalvarchyplemert hie sctrectspa css cicisiea ite edene eater felons asta 6.1 
Dentalarch, ext: breadth at the canines............0.. 5.5 

Foramen Magnum: 

MCT E Tt Asie tani Wos cients sc PSR ene Bi Wielt its Bae a Calais 4.1 
Ereadths meaniect seiticicrrciictae america cia orens aceon ctanchens 3.2 
Additional Measurements on the Vault and Face: 
INASION-OPIStIOMperytattpettadsietetsteislalareeieleiclele) stele eis eels’ «)0i eve) sle)a\els/e)=|c)=eln +i 4.9 
SEO IL am nerete aire eae are ay Ro nets esc n ee ick soles oa le. cve Se) o aNovsvauehatn 13.8 
SL ari ee oe ae tte yictaue Stab ators Chetenei 25.7 
iit GLESSELOHUS iia stnein ere erciecivias ey aforietels euclelelatacy® ois ets Siete ares 28.7 
OPIS TMOMN ARC PUES SHLORIS ghepe oct cher=as cyeke eh-;ocia ists dim dria cageial's malmdens 36.7 
“OMISHMONYANG: LOVELUTOnIMS. CLOSE) tO... 10.2, ofan = se apace = Geum siatslni ees 37.8 
Supkaoepitaleaken, Wax. DRCAGEN: «0.65 ic0 ay genes om cee v yace cas Seles 14.0 
External biorbital diam. (at fronto-malar sutures).................. 13.4 
Bumnalarediam. (imalar notch to malar motch))/..c.. <n). sa e-. ne ees 13.6 

Of all the human bones from the Broken Hill cave, a clavicle and 
the tibia only have been mentioned as having been seen more or less 
in the vicinity of the skull and could conceivably belong to the same 
skeleton ; it is therefore incumbent on the student to give these speci- 
mens careful attention. The collar-bone, however—if such it was— 
has not been saved. 

The tibia was studied first by Keith, and recently by Pycraft who 
compared it with a Bantu tibia and found it more primitive in some 
respects, especially about the mesial condyle. If he had compared it 
with a fairly large series of male negro tibiae he would probably have 
found, as does the writer, that not only does it not possess a single 
character which is not within or close to the normal range of variation 
of the negro, but that, in addition, it is remarkably negro-like in its 
distinctive features, differing correspondingly from other recent and 
especially from all the known early tibiae. 

The tibia is that of the left side of a rather tall male adult of 
evidently middle or slightly beyond middle age. The bone is long and, 
relatively to its length, rather slender ; all the known early tibiae are 
short, squatty. 


Principal measurements (Hrdlicka) : 

500 tibiae of 

The Rhodesian miscell. American 
tibia white males 
cm, cm. 
Length, “in position” less spine (cast)........ 41.3 36.5 
Mength max. lessu spine (cast) ima eects 41.6 36.8 
At middle: 
Diam. antero-post., max. (on original).... 3.40 3.13 

Diam. lateral (with anterior border of bone 
midway between the two branches of the 

sliding calipers) (on original)........... 2.45 2.22 
Indexsatemiddleseenan eee: 72.1 70.9 
Shape of shaft at middle—Type 4 (moderately 
quadrilateral—posterior surface Similar type in 
divided by a vertical ridge into II.5 per cent of 
two surfaces ) male white tibiae 

The bone is almost perfectly straight, which is neither the case 
with the tibiae of early nor with a large majority of those of recent 
man, with two marked exceptions—tibiae of precisely this form are 
typical of the tall negro, and bones of same nature have recently 
been found, with somewhat but not fully negroid (proto-negroid ?) 
skulls, in late prehistoric burials in British East Africa by Mr. 

The Broken Hill tibia shows certain peculiarities which at first 
sight seem to separate it from others. These consist in a certain 
slenderness and more than ordinarily marked bilateral concavity, me- 
sially and laterally, below the condyles. In addition there is a smooth 
surface above the tuberosity, somewhat concave from side to side, 
and a pronounced large faceted eminence outside of this concavity, 
below the anterior border of the lateral condyle. There is seen further, 
just below this eminence, a marked looping ridge. It passes upwards 
and outwards from the tuberosity, forms the lower boundary of the 
subcondylar eminence, then passes backward to within a few milli- 
meters of the fibular facet, turns in a loop downward and forward, 
reaches the middle ef the lateral surface and then descends, diminish- 
ing, down this surface to the middle of the shaft where it merges 
with the lateral border of the latter. The facet for the fibula is 
somewhat raised inferiorly. The medial condyle and its articular 
facet show a fairly marked inclination backward. And there are a 
few minor points. 

*The interesting originals, composing an important collection, were kindly 
shown to me in 1927 by Mr. Leakey at the College of Surgeons, London, where 
they were being studied by the discoverer. 


All these features will be encountered, though probably not all in 
the same specimen or to quite the same degree, on negro, old Egyptian, 
and various recent tibiae, if there is ample material for comparison. 

The mild concavity from side to side above the tuberosity is due 
to the pronounced development of what should be called the ilio-tibial 
tubercle and facet, which serve for and are developed by the attach- 
ment of the ilio-tibial fascia. The tubercle may be encountered with 
varying frequency, and at times strongly developed, in the tibiae of 
all races. Its pronounced development in the Rhodesian tibia indicates 
merely an exceptionally strong development of the fascia and not a 
phylogenetic peculiarity of the bone. 

Much the same may be said of the looping ridge. All its elements 
are found in occasional late and recent tibiae, separately and even 

The inclination and other characteristics of the medial condyle and 
of its articular facet are comprised in the above generalization. This 
condyle shows moderate marginal exostoses which are evidence of 
arthritis deformans, and that this disease is capable of modifying 
the mesial facet in its inclination and other characters is well known. 
The posterior border of the facet has been damaged, which influences 
its aspect and makes it appear more inclined backwards than is 
actually the case. But even thus the inclination backward of the con- 
dyle and its facet can be matched and even exceeded in recent 

It would be useless in this place to go into detailed comparative 
measurements and more minute descriptions ; it will suffice to repeat 
that there is not one feature or dimension of the Rhodesian tibia 
that may not be found also in the tibia of the tall African blacks and 
other recent bones. There is no one among the 50 negro tibiae of both 
sexes that were used for comparison that equals in all respects that 
of the Broken Hill, but there is also not one of the negro bones that 
is fully equalled by any of the others, each specimen having more or 
less of individuality. 

The fibular facet, the conformation of and below the posterior 
border of the upper surface, the size and shape of the shaft, the 
popliteal ridge, nutritive foramen, the lower part of the shaft, the 
maleolus, and the lower articular facet, all are close to or identical 
with corresponding features in individual negro and other modern 

There is not a point here, as in the rest of the bone, that could 
justly be designated as exceptionally primitive and belonging distinctly 
to an earlier human estate. The bone, notwithstanding some indi- 


vidual traits, is one of late, if not recent human type, and a type 
that is closest to that of the African negro. The bone does not harmo- 
nize at all with the Neanderthal tibiae, and does not correspond in 
primitiveness to the skull. Its identification with the latter, unless 
proved by further discoveries, can remain but little more than a 


Bouts, M. L’homme fossile de la Chapelle-aux-Saints. Ann. Paléont., Vol. 6, 
pp. 112-172, 4 pls.; Vol. 7, pp. 85-192, 7 pls.; Vol. 8, pp. 1-70; 1911-1913. 
Dupois, E. The proto-Australian fossil man of Wadjak, Java. Proc. Acad. Sci., 

Amsterdam, Vol. 23, pp. 1013-1051, 2 pls., 1922. 

Harris, W. E. Illustrated London News, November 109, 1921. 

Hroiicxa, A. Lecture before Roy. Anthrop. Inst., Vol. 66, p. 557, Nature, 
London, 1925. 

. The Rhodesian man. Amer. Journ. Phys. Anthrop., Vol. 9, pp. 173-193, 

Kerrn, A. The antiquity of man. Vol. I, pp. xxxii + 1-376, figs. 1-133; Vol. II, 
pp. xiv + 377-753, figs. 134-266, edit. 2. London, 1925. 

MENNEL, F. P., and Cuuss, E. C. On an African occurrence of fossil mam- 
malia associated with stone implements. Geol. Mag., Vol. 5, No. IV, pp. 
443-448, London, 1907. 

Neave, S. A. On the birds of Northern Rhodesia and the Katanga District of 
Congoland. Jbid., Vol. 9, No. IV, pp. 78-155, 225-262, 3 pls., 1910. 

Situ, G. Etxiiot. The evolution of man. Pp. xx + 195, 50 text-figs., edit. 2, 
London, 1927. 

SmitH, S. A. The fossil human skull found at Talgai, Queensland. Philos. 
Trans. (B), Vol. 208, pp. 351-386, 6 pls., 1918. 

Sottas, W. J. On the cranial and facial characters of the Neanderthal race. 
Philos. Trans. (B), Vol. 190, pp. 281-339, pl. vii, 1907. 

Wuirte, F. Notes on the cave containing fossilised bones, etc., at Broken Hill, 
North-Western Rhodesia. Proc. Rhodesia Sci. Assoc., Vol. 7, pp. 13-23, 

Woopwarp, A. S. A new cave man from Rhodesia, South Africa. Nature, 
Vol. 108, pp. 371-372, London, 1921. 

The problem of the Rhodesian fossil man. Sci. Progress, Vol. 16, pp. 

574-579, 1922. 

A Guide to the fossil remains of man in the Department of Geology 

and Palaeontology in the British Museum (Natural History), pp. 1-34, 

6 pls., 14 text-figs., London, 1922. 

1907—Mennell, F. P., and E. C. Chubb. On an African Occurrence 
of Fossil Mammalia Associated with Stone Implements.’ 

Our investigations have been chiefly based on specimens in the Rhodesia 
Museum presented by the Broken Hill Company, Mr. Franklin White, Mr. 

* Proc. Rhodesia Sci. Assoc., Vol. 6, Bulawayo, 1907. 

(‘SMON por}essN][] UopuoyT sy IV) [NYS oy} Jo AraAoostp ay} Jaze ApJoYs 9Avd [II F{ UoyoIg JO uvlsapoyy YL 

~ aura Jo 
40014 juasasdg 

puns a1aM Sureuat 
UPWINY fayj{o pue 
[OHS 244 2434 
ods yoexg 


N ~~. £r° 

2049 "MANY Ni : 
oy peurdirto. \ 
2 HWoOLtody ) 

Yas) « 

SF ral ; ; »fy40g 
(4au46D-A'S) j 

uofjpoas fied 

utaofdoy reuré.s60 

4o uoljiod Surmoys 




Mr. Zwigelaar, the discoverer of the Rhodesian skull, shortly after the find was made. 
(Photograph given Hrdlicka by Mr. Zwigelaar, 10925.) 




‘exactly as 
and where it lay,” to be photographed. (Photograph given to Hrdlicka by the authori- 
ties of the Broken Hill Mine, 1925.) 

The Rhodesian skull, shortly after its discovery, placed by Zwigelaar 


I, 2. Stone implements and characteristically broken 
animal bones from the Broken Hill cave. (Brought by 
Hrdlicka, 1925; in British Museum. ) 

3. Human broken bones from the Rhodesian cave. 
(Brought by Hrdli¢ka, 1925; now in British Museum. ) 


Rhodesian skull, front view. 

(gz61 Qyesrokg J9ypy) “MIA oprs “[[NYs uersspoyy 




VOL. 83, 



craft, 192 

fter Py 



Rhodesian skull, top view. 


Rhodesian skull, basal view. (After Pycraft, 1928.) 


1. Rhodesian tibia (right) and two modern tibiae, all showing a marked development 
of the tubercle and facet for the attachment of the ilio-tibial. (Hrdlicka, U. S. National 
Museum. ) 

2. Broken Hill tibia (right) and two modern tibiae (middle and left). Inclination of 
mesial facet, and other features. (Hrdlicka, U. S. National Museum.) 


Upper, the humerus from the Rhodesian cave, brought by Hrdli¢ka. (Specimen 
in British Museum; photograph British Museum. ) 
Lower, the sacrum from the Rhodesian cave. (After Pycraft, 10928.) 


The two femora and the sacrum from the Rhodesian cave. (After Pycraft, 1928.) 



Marshall Hole and others, as well as on other material for the opportunity of 
examining which we are indebted to Mr. White and to Mr. F. G. Colville. 

The Rhodesian Broken Hill Mine is situated about 150 miles north of the 
Kafue River in North-Western Rhodesia. It contains extensive zinc and lead 
deposits which have a prominent outcrop in the shape of two small hills or 
“kopjes” rising out of a “vlei” or swampy flat. The surrounding country is 
chiefly limestone, which is associated, in proximity to the ore-body, with schistose 
rocks, evidently altered sandy and shaly sediments, together with crushed bands 
of the limestone itself. There is granite not many miles distant, but the ores do 
not appear to have any direct connection with an igneous rock; they seem rather 
to be related to faulting and shearing of the limestone at its junction with the 
schists. Surface specimens of the limestone are usually somewhat coarsely crys- 
talline, and white or grey in color with few impurities save quartz. Lower down 
in the workings they are often black or reddish in color and closely resemble 
the Carboniferous Limestone of Somersetshire. Under the microscope, however, 
they differ im toto, having a foliated structure in even the most compact-looking 
specimens. It is probable therefore that the sugary appearance of the outcropping 
rock is due to some form of surface alteration. It cannot be attributed to pres- 
sure or contact metamorphism, as it would in that case be just as apparent below 
ground as it is above. The limestone is highly magnesian and sometimes ap- 
proaches a true dolomite in composition. No definite silicate minerals can be 
detected under the microscope. 

The feature of the ore-body with which we are now chiefly concerned is the 
extraordinary accumulation of mammalian bones in No. 1 Kopje. Beautifully 
crystallized phosphatic minerals have also been found in No. 2 Kopje, but al- 
though it would seem a natural inference that they are due to the interaction of 
the metalliferous solutions with the lime phosphate of bones, none of the latter 
have been met with. The amount of bones in No. 1 Kopje is enormous. They 
occur in the central part of the kopje and almost continuously beneath it, below 
the level of the surrounding flats. It would appear that the bone deposits repre- 
sent the infilling of a large cavern in the limestone, perhaps with a kind of 
swallow-hole leading down from the top of the kopje, though there is no actual 
opening at the present time. It is difficult from the data at present available to 
determine with any certainty the relative ages of the different layers of bones, 
but their accumulation must have taken a very long period of time. There are 
masses of bones almost free from other substances, and there are interspersed 
muddy layers containing zinc compounds, but free from bones. Much of the 
material, however, which shows no large bones, yields on disintegration innu- 
merable bones of rats, shrews, birds, etc. The bones are in nearly all cases partly 
or wholly converted into zinc phosphate (hopeite?). They are therefore truly 
fossil, the organic matter having disappeared and having been completely re- 
placed by mineral substances. Vughs in the deposit are often lined with mag- 
nificent crystals of the rare mineral hopeite and they also show at times more 
or less dendritic coatings of a substance which at first was taken for amorphous 
zinc phosphate, but which is rich in vanadium and may really be a calcium vana- 
date. The new triclinic zinc phosphate “tarbuttite ”’ occurs in No. 2 Kopje with 
cerussite, hemimorphite, hopeite, pyromorphite and vanadinite or descloizite, and 
does not seem to be found in the bone deposit. 

The bones make up vast accumulations of isolated broken fragments. Whole 
bones are the rarest exceptions, and are exceedingly difficult to extract even 



when discovered. There never appear to be a number of bones belonging to the 
same animal occurring together, as would be the case if they had died naturally 
on the spot or been accidentally engulfed, in the way suggested for the well- 
known occurrence at the Winnats, Castleton, Derbyshire. It seems certain that 
the deposits as a whole represent the materials accumulated during alternating 
occupations of the original cavern by animals and human beings, with interven- 
ing periods when the cave was untenanted probably owing to flooding with 
water. The animal occupants were such as are found together in the Rhodesian 
caves of the present day, namely, hyenas and porcupines, no doubt accompanied 
by owls and bats. Some of the bones show signs of having been gnawed by 
hyenas, and there can be little doubt that many of them were dragged into the 
place when it served as a hyena den. Most of the smaller bones are probably 
to be accounted for in a somewhat similar fashion, the rats, shrews, etc., having 
formed the prey of owls and the bones having been ejected in the usual pellets 
after the birds had assimilated the more digestible portions of the bodies. An 
examination of modern owl pellets entirely confirms this view, as these latter 
show the same predominance of head and leg bones as do the washings of the 
Broken Hill deposit. As usual with mammalian remains, lower jaws are par- 
ticularly prominent. Those parts of the deposit which contain implements, no 
doubt owe their accumulation in great part at least to human agency, the bones 
being relics of the food supply of the ancient inhabitants. It may at once be 
stated that the contemporaneity of the implements and bones is entirely beyond 
question. Masses of the deposit full of bones when disintegrated by soaking in 
water, are found to contain embedded implements. These latter are of a rude 
order and mostly made of quartz, owing of course to the absence of any more 
suitable material in the vicinity. There seems to be a strong prejudice in England 
against the genuineness of implements made of quartz, and it may therefore be 
well to emphasize the fact that some are made of chert brought from a distance, 
and it may also be well to point out that quartz is a very common material for 
Bushman implements, which the Broken Hill ones much resemble. Knives, 
scrapers, and grooved scrapers are the common types. Some of the bones show 
indications of having been cut previously to their mineralisation, as if to make 
implements, though no finished bone implements have so far been brought to 
light. One tibia of a moderate-sized ungulate in the Rhodesia Museum has had 
a nearly circular hole made in it prior to its replacement by zinc salts. This may 
be attributed to a wound from an arrow of the Bushman type or it may have 
been bored with a view to making an implement or ornament; in either case it 
must be due to human agency. 

With regard to the age of the deposit it must represent a long period of time 
in all, but it will be noted from the subjoined list that nearly all the bones appear 
to be referable without much doubt to recent species inhabiting the country at 
the present day. It is probable, however, that some may represent closely allied 
but really ancestral forms, and this certainly appears to be the case with the 
species of Diceros (rhinoceros) of which two well-preserved bones are now in 
the Rhodesia Museum. It is unfortunate that we are not in possession of skulls 
or teeth of this animal, but we think there can be little doubt as to its being new, 
and it has therefore been thought well to give it a name for convenient future 

The mineral condition of the bones and the obvious changes in the physical 
features of the locality since the deposit was formed are entirely in accord with 


the idea of its being of very great age from an anthropological point of view. 
There consequently appears to be every justification for our belief that: the evi- 
dence affords the strongest presumption of the great antiquity of man in this 
part of the world, and that further investigations, which we hope shortly to 
undertake, will reveal even more convincing proof on this head. 

By C. E. Couns 

The following is a list of the vertebrates represented by teeth or bones, and 
identified as accurately as is possible with the scanty material at my disposal 
for comparison. “ R. M.” after a description indicates a specimen in the Rhodesia 


An almost complete skull, two or three upper jaws, and numerous lower jaws 
of shrews. (R. M.) : 


Felis leo, Linn. A right ramus and a few odd teeth. 

Felis spp. The canine of an animal about the size of a leopard, and one about 
the size of Felis ocreata. Also two lower jaws apparently belonging to Felis 

Hyaena sp. A right ramus belonging to a hyena, but it does not agree ex- 
actly with H. crocuta. (R. M.) 

Viverridaec. The right ramus of a member of this family about the size of a 
large genet. 


Tatera sp. Several upper and lower jaws. (R. M.) 

Otomys sp. A number of lower jaws showing the characteristic laminated 
molars and grooved incisors. There are also one or two odd incisors and molars. 
(R. M.) 

Mus. spp. Great numbers of lower jaws and a few portions of upper jaws 
belonging to several different-sized species. (R. M.) 

Bathyergidae. A right ramus without teeth, approximating to Georychus 
capensis in size. (R. M.) ; 

Hystrix sp. A complete ramus and an odd incisor. 


Phacochoerus aethiopicus, Pall. A right upper tusk and a portion of an upper 
tusk, showing scraping and chipping by human agency. A lower tusk. 

Elephas africanus, Blumen. The proximal portion of a humerus, and part of a 

Diceros, Gray. Two complete bones, a left humerus and a right tibia, of a 
rhinoceros excavated by Mr. Franklin White, were presented by him to the 
Museum. (R. M. No. 546.) On comparing these with bones of the modern 


D. bicornis I find they differ so materially as to warrant their recognition as 
belonging to a distinct species. This may be known, after the discoverer, as 
Diceros whitei, sp. nov. 

Diceros whitei, sp. nov. The humerus of this species differs most remarkably 
from that of D. bicornis in the shape of its distal end. The olecranon fossa is 
very much narrower than in D. bicornis, being 29 mm. in diameter, as compared 
with 51 mm. for a specimen of the latter. Indeed, the whole bone, although evi- 
dently that of a fully adult individual, is smaller and much slighter in propor- 
tion to its length, which is 330 mm. from the trochlea to the head of the humerus, 
while D. bicornis measures 358 mm. The tibia, although not differing to the 
same extent as the humerus, is nevertheless slightly narrower in proportion and 
a little shorter. This species is evidently a form of rhinoceros smaller and less 
heavily built than D. bicornis. For this reason it is also distinct from D. simus, 
and from D. simplicidens, Scott, which is likewise larger than D. bicorms. I 
hope shortly to publish figures showing fully the differences between the species. 

Equus sp. Several molars probably belonging to a zebra. 

Connochoetes taurinus, Burch. The basal portion of a horn-core. 

Strepsiceros strepsiceros, Pall. An imperfect horn-core. 

Taurotragus oryx, Pall. Portion of a horn-core. 

In addition to the above there are in the Rhodesia Museum a number of 
bones and teeth of various other antelopes, not identifiable with certainty. 


An incomplete pelvis of a small bird, an ulna and several leg-bones. 


The ischial portion of a frog’s pelvis; also an astragalus and calcaneum. 


1908.—A second and even more detailed report on the Broken 
Hill cave soon followed (September 26, 1908). It is a communication 
by Engineer Franklin White, at that time employed by the Broken 
Hill Mining Company, to the Rhodesian Scientific Association.” The 
paper, the title of which is ‘‘ Notes on a Cave Containing Fossilized 
Bones of Animals, Worked Pieces of Bone, Stone Implements and 
Quartzite Pebbles, Found in a Kopje or Small Hill Composed of 
Zine and Lead Ores at Broken Hill, North-Western Rhodesia ” gives 
in the main the following information: 

The geological formation is limestone with some beds of sandstone conglomer- 
ates and phyllites. The country in general is very flat, excepting where the 
sandstone ridges rise a few feet above the general level. .... Around Broken 

Hill, however, there is a series of kopjes or small rugged hills composed chiefly 
of ores of zinc and lead, the top of the highest (No. 2) being about 90 feet above 

* Proc. Rhodesia Sci. Assoc., Vol. 7, Pt. 2, pp. 13-21, 1908. 


the ordinary ground level. .... The outcropping zinc and lead ores have been 
much weathered, forming crevices, rough crests and ledges which at times are 
sufficient to form lairs for wild beasts, or even to afford a slight shelter for 
human beings such as Bushmen, but nothing which can be properly called a cave 
has been found from the outside of these kopjes, neither are there any indica- 
tions of blocked-up entrances to passages or caverns. Owing to the flat nature 
of the country, the water in the rainy season stands in numerous pools and can 
be found in shallow excavations a foot or two in depth. During the dry season 
the numerous crevices in the limestone afford passage for the water to drain off 
and the natural water level is then about 18 feet below the ordinary surface. 
There is therefore an annual rise and fall in the water level underground which 
will vary according to the rainfall, which is from 23 to 40 inches per annum, the 
wet months being November to March..... A deposit of fossilized bones, 
teeth and cores of horns had, however, been found on the Northeast side of the 
hill when a large quantity of carbonates of zinc, lying on the flank of the hill, 
was quarried away. The bones were found in a layer of sandy clay about four 
feet thick, the top being about 3 feet below the surface level. 

Beneath the bone layer was a stratum of damp clay, and this rested on ore 
of the ordinary class. This bone deposit was quite covered over by calamine ore. 
‘The bones were highly mineralized, the phosphates of lime being converted into 
phosphates of zinc. The fragments found were very small, seldom being obtained 
more than six inches long and were not at all in well defined layers. The north- 
ern end of the deposit has not yet been excavated. A lower tunnel, 175 feet below 
the others, was driven later on from the southwest to northeast right under the 
hill, the entrance being from inclines commencing some 20 feet away from the 
foot of the slope of the hill. At 34 feet from where the tunnel began, the solid 
ore was replaced by a mixture of rather dull yellow clay in which were embedded 
numerous fragments of broken bones, teeth and cores of horns of animals and 
splinters and flakes of white quartz. It was considered advisable to ascertain 
how much space was taken up by this mixture of clay and a cross-drive or 
tunnel was made towards the northwest extending for 44 feet. The tunnel reached 
a face of solid ore dipping steeply to the northwest. No examination was made 
on the southeastern side of the lower tunnel. A cross tunnel was then driven 
westwards from the main or surface adit, at 45 feet from the entrance, and at 
25 feet the cavity was again reached, the top being nearly level with the tunnel. 
The width from east to west was thus shown to be some 24 feet. The length, 
on a line running nearly north and south is at present proved to be 80 feet. 

Description of the cave-—This cannot be given very completely at present as 
the work of excavation is suspended for a time. The northwestern end at the 
lower level, and the southeastern end at the upper level are exposed, and the 
position of the northeastern edge can be fairly accurately determined by the 
points of intersection at the lower tunnel, by the cross-drive, and by the fact 
that the south shaft is in solid ore. The southwestern edge is still undetermined. 

There is clay and earthy material still in the bottom of the cross-drive at the 
end. There are only a few pieces of bone below a line drawn 4 feet above the 
floor, or say 134 feet below the surface level. This may be due to the perma- 
nent water level being close by and therefore this portion of the cave would be 
less frequently occupied. The black earthy and clayey materials forming the 
lower half of the cross-drive are in distinct layers. In one layer were found some 
small lumps of sulphide of lead which had apparently been formed there. A 


section of this end of the cave and its filling shows the following features: The 
layer, in which bones are most abundant, dips a little to the southeast. 

Present roof of cave—trThis is composed of a soft, easily disintegrated clay, in 
which lie pieces of quartz, broken bones of larger animals and innumerable little 
bones of small animals, some of which have been identified. The roof is thickly 
studded with beautiful clear white crystals of phosphate of zinc (hopeite). 
Towards the north another class of small crystals becomes frequent. These are 
dull red or brown and resemble short moss. The solid face of ore is covered with 
them. The yellow clay stratum comes within about 14 feet from the roof and 
with the aid of a strong light it can be seen that this open space extends for 
some distance upwards. On top of the clay, crystals of phosphate of zinc are also 
numerous. In the clay stratum pieces of bone, teeth, etc., are in large numbers 
and in the side of the tunnel a piece of a large bone some 8 inches wide was 
found. Below the yellow stratum the filling lies in very distinct thin layers 
which, however, do not run evenly, but dip in several directions as shown. A 
thin seam of carbonate or lime crystals runs downwards through this filling 
which is of a blackish colour and corresponds to the residue which would be left 
from the decomposition of limestone. The fragments of bone became very scarce 
towards the bottom of the tunnel. It will be noticed that the filling in of the 
tunnel has receded or settled down from the roof and back from the end of the 

Another noteworthy feature is that the roof at this place is neither ore nor 
limestone but clay and with it are mingled innumerable small bones and also 
some pieces of large bones. These facts will be referred to later in the paper. 
The portion of the cave exposed in the tunnel from the upper drive presents some 
different features. The roof is limestone, the bone layer is not so thick but the 
bones are larger. They lie on a bed of soft black débris, are considerably altered, 
evidently by contact with zinc-bearing solutions and are coated with a thin 
blackish film which cements them together so firmly that great care is required 
to separate them from each other. The bones identified as a species of rhinoceros 
were found here in a position which indicates that they must have been thrown 
in as it were in a corner. In no instance do the bones lie in such a manner as 
would indicate that they formed part of an entire animal. They are generally 
broken, but show no signs of having been gnawed by carnivora. On the other 
hand there is distinct evidence that the cave was occupied by human beings of a 
very low type. 

Evidences of human occupation.—These can be summarized as follows: Stone 
implements, chiefly flakes of white opaque quartz, not at all suitable for such 
purposes, some nevertheless showing distinctly the chipping, cutting or scraping 
edges and notches. Implements of a close grained reddish stone, one being 
distinctly serrated. Bones showing cuts or notches, one being chipped into a 
rough hexagonal form. Pieces of bone, ivory or horn, shaped as if used for dig- 
ging roots. Large rounded pebbles of quartzite which must have been brought 
from a distance and were probably used for breaking up marrow bones. The 
size of some of the bones and position and manner in which they are found 
makes it very improbable that they are the remains of animals which have died 
in the cave from natural causes or have been dragged in by beasts of prey. 

Formation or origin of the cave and its subsequent filling in—AlIthough, in 
view of the little exploratory work done, it is rather premature to advance 
theories regarding these points, the following suggestions may be put forward 


as affording a possible explanation. The well defined, nearly vertical face of 
solid ore which forms the northwest end of the cave may be the result of subsi- 
dence caused by the ore or rock below having been dissolved away by under- 
ground currents of water, or by thermal springs. This large cavity having been 
formed, it may have become filled up by clayey matter, bones, etc., washed in 
from above, and a subsequent subsidence having taken place, a portion of the 
filling may have remained behind, thereby forming the roof of the present cave. 
No entrance has been found, although the southern face of the hill has been 
scraped clean in benches in taking away ore. 

The second filling up of the cave may have been as follows: In the yearly 
rise and fall of water due to the recurring rainy and dry seasons, the fine par- 
ticles remaining from the disintegration of the limestone would sink down until 
the bottom was raised to such a level that it would for a great part of the year 
serve as a habitation for human beings. During each rainy season the rising 
water would force the inhabitants to retire or occupy the upper part of the cave, 
and season by season fresh layers of bones, rubbish, stones, etc., would raise the 
floor still higher. 

The entrance may not yet have been discovered, it may be small. It may 
have been blocked up by falls of rock or covered over by gradual deposition of 
ore from solutions, as was the case with the bone deposit on the eastern side. 
It is probable that the entrance was closed up in some way, and that gradually 
the earth, clay and bones forming the floor or filling settled down and receded 
from the sides and roof during the recurrent dry seasons. During this period 
the beautiful crystals of different minerals already referred to, would be de- 
posited from the solutions permeating the mass of ore in the hill... .. Many 
of the animal remains have been examined in the Rhodesia Museum by Messrs. 
F. P. Mennell, the Curator, and E. C. Chubb, the Assistant Curator, with the 
result that the following identifications have been made. 

Mr. White’s communication is followed by Mr. E. C. Chubb’s “ List 
of Vertebrate Remains ” from the cave (already given), and to this 
is added a Discussion which brings out or accentuates a number of 
further points of interest: 

Mr. Marshall Hole: What interested me and probably many others in the 
room most was the evidence afforded on the immense antiquity of man in South 
Central Africa. I paid a visit to the cave in June of the present year and was 
struck by the fact that the chipped implements of which I found and brought 
away several specimens, were confined to a small portion of the cave and that 
the deepest. I also found a bone which had been perforated probably for use 
as an ornament and this is now in the Bulawayo Museum. 

Father Goetz asked: (1) In what part of the cave were the stone implements 
found? (2) In what part of the cave were the bones of the extinct animals 
found? (3) How was the cave formed? Was it not a subterranean cave whose 
top had fallen in, so that the filling up had come from above? 

Mr. Colville: I believe the extinct species was found in the upper level in 
which the greatest number of large bones are found. The stone implements lay 
thickest in the lower level anywhere where bones were found but there were also 
some near the large bones in the upper part. I think it likely that at different 
periods the cave was occupied by humans and then abandoned for some reason 


when hyenas and other animals would occupy it, then probably by humans 
again for a period and so on for ages. 

Mr. Chubb: Among the bones examined by me and which have now gone to 
the British Museum there was one at least which appeared to show evidence of 
having been gnawed by hyena; I suggest that for a certain period the cave may 
have formed a hyena den. This would account for a certain amount of the larger 
bones found in the cave. But to account for the small mammal remains I think 
that the cave might possibly have provided a roosting place for owls and the 
pellets of bones which these birds throw up, accumulating for years would yield 
a great quantity of remains. On the other hand it may be that a large area of 
surrounding country had been subjected to sudden flooding, in which case all the 
smaller terrestrial animals would be drowned and carried away by the torrent 
which might have led into the cave; and the water then draining through would 
leave the bones behind. It is well known that in the valleys of some of the large 
South American rivers all the small mammals are often killed in this way. 

Mr. Mennell: The paper is of much interest as dealing with the first in- 
stance out of Europe and the Mediterranean region of stone implements being 
found in association with extinct animal remains. Besides the rhinoceros de- 
scribed by Mr. Chubb the jaws of lion and hyena from the deposit did not alto- 
gether agree with modern examples and it is quite possible that a number of 
extinct species will be found. 



The ancient skull which has just recently arrived from Rhodesia and has 
excited the keenest interest in scientific circles, was unearthed at a depth of 
60 feet below water level in the Rhodesia Broken Hill Development Company’s 
mine at Broken Hill, Northern Rhodesia and has been presented by the pro- 
prietors of the mine to the British Museum. 

No little excitement was caused in the far-away mining camp when it was 
known that a skull had been found in the mine, and many heated discussions 
took place among the miners, as to whether it was a large ape’s skull or that 
of a human being. The native laborers were not so interested, however; so after 
the native foreman had sent the skull to the “ white boss” they went on with 
their digging, and so broke into pieces what would have been a far more impor- 
tant discovery, that of the complete skeleton of this early ancestor of man. It 
was after the manager of the property had seen the skull that it was decided to 
put it aside and make a search for further remains, and so we were able to re- 
cover a leg bone, a collar bone, portion of shoulder blade, also portion of the 
pelvis with coccyx attached, and part of a lower jaw, together with various parts 
of other bones not identified, and most of the pieces of the mineralized cast of 
the body. The only other large bone found near these human remains was a 
smashed skull of an animal similar to a lion; also a round stone similar in shape 
and size to the stones the present-day natives use for various grinding purposes. 

*By William E. Harris, The Illustrated London News, Nov. 19, p. 680, 1921. 


One can easily imagine a fight to a finish between man and beast in those 
far-off, dim ages. 

The mine, which is at present an open quarry, has been famous for its “ Bone 
Cave” amongst geologists and travellers for some years, and is situated some 
650 miles north of Bulawayo. It was at the foot of this “ Bone Cave” that the 
skull and other human bones mentioned were found, constituting the only human 
remains out of the many hundreds of tons of bones that have been removed dur- 
ing mining operations. Fossilised and partly fossilised remains of elephant, lion, 
leopard, rhino and hippo, also of antelope and other cattle, together with tons 
upon tons of bones of small animals and birds, have been found. The writer has 
stood at a place where this ‘“ Bone Cave” has been cut through and has pulled 
out from the débris various fossilised bones, such as jaw bones, skulls of small 
animals and teeth all of which were destined to be passed through the smelters 
to obtain the metals which have replaced the lime of the bones; for chemical 
examination has shown that the lime has been largely replaced by the phosphates 
of zine and lead. 

The discovery of this skull is made doubly interesting when the mine and par- 
ticularly the “Bone Cave” itself are considered. Before mining operations 
commenced, there stood at this spot a kopje or hill 50 to 60 feet high, with a 
slight depression in the centre. Mining operations have demolished this hill, and 
have excavated to the depth of over 90 feet below ground level where the hill 
stood, and it was at this depth that the skull was discovered. The entrance to the 
“Bone Cave” was at ground level. One of the early prospectors who visited it 
before mining operations commenced, has described the cave as being practically 
filled with débris. After one had crawled over this obstruction and stood upon 
the floor of the cave proper, it could be seen that bones of various animals were 
scattered all around. The floor was made of loose débris and fairly dry. The 
walls and roof were studded with crystalline deposits, which, when lighted up 
with the rays of a candle or lamp, reflected back the light, making a veritable 
fairy cavern, whilst bats and owls, disturbed by the unaccustomed lights, flew 
around, much to the visitors’ discomfort. 

It is believed that the cave extended some 120 to 150 feet in a horizontal or 
slightly dipping direction, from west to east. The walls and roof consist of 
dolomite and zinc silicate, the floor of loose material to a depth varying from 
4 to 12 feet, consisting almost entirely of fossilised or partly fossilised remains 
of animals. Under this carpet of loose material is rock similar to the walls and 
roof. Thirty feet below the level of the entrance of the cave is the original water 
level. At about to feet below water level, the cave takes a decided dip, and is 
filled to the roof with loose débris. At 40 to 50 feet the walls have disappeared 
altogether, and the bones are surrounded with a soft, friable, lead-carbonate ore. 
As this constituted the main body of the ore around the lower portion of the 
cave, the theory has been put forward that the zinc in the ore has been leached 
out by the action of water and so caused a general subsidence which would 
account for the depression on the top of the original kopje and also for the 
subsidence of the cave from its supposed original horizontal position. 

How did these bones get into this cave and how long have they been accumu- 
lating? How did the skull and other bones of the skeleton, the only human 
remains found there, come to be at the toe of this cave, with tons upon tons of 
bones above them? 


One prominent geologist has suggested that the bones have been placed in 
the cave by human agency. In amplification, another suggestion has been that 
the original cavern may have been an extremely ancient mine-shaft which was 
later used as a dumping pit for animal refuse by a tribe of hunters. But the 
obviously great antiquity of the skull would discountenance the mining theory, 
while the enormous quantity (some hundreds of tons) of animal bones and the 
fact that more than 90 per cent of them are so small that the animals must have 
been far too little to serve as food for human beings, rather tends to cast doubt 
on the dumping theory. 

Another theory, that these bones have been washed into the cave by periodic 
floods at the times of rains, cannot stand, as all the bones are loose and not 
cemented together with mud, as might be expected if they had been washed off 
the surrounding veldt. Also, where could such masses have come from? 

The theory that these animals were engulfed whilst taking refuge from some 
natural upheaval, such as fire or flood, is likewise untenable, inasmuch as at the 
toe, where the skull was discovered, apart from the skull only small bones have 
been found. The larger bones were deposited nearer the mouth, and from their 
condition must have been a far more recent deposit than that of the skull or 
surrounding bones. 

Truly, the whole subject is an astounding mystery. 


The skeletal remains attributable to the Neanderthal family already 
constitute a very imposing lot of material. Their area extends from 
the middle and southern portions of western Europe to the western- 
most parts of Asia. They are dated by the distinctive “ Mousterian ” 
culture, so-called after its type-locality at Le Moustier, in southern 
France, and by the associated bones of extinct mammals belonging 
to the latter third of the glacial epoch. And they are being added to 
almost yearly by new discoveries, even though most of these bring 
forth but a few fragments. 

The great interest in the ““ Neanderthal” family of man lies in the 
evolutionally decidedly lower characteristics of the remains, and in 
the seemingly rapid extinction of the variety, not long after the 
maximum of the last glaciation, upon the supposed advent from some- 
where else of Homo sapiens. All this is of such importance to pre- 
history that a somewhat extended critical consideration of the subject 
is demanded. It wili be found at the end of this section. Before 
this it is necessary to present a rather thorough survey of the evidence 
presented by the material. 

Leaving out of consideration the relatively unimportant and the 
doubtful items, the remains attributed to the Neanderthal variety of 
man comprise now (1930) the following: 





i re eS SS SSS SSS eee 

"O88 ‘EXSPIW +7881 
‘MOUDIIA “YW: fgg 
pue IggiI ‘uesney 

‘991 ‘quodng “y 
“*gSgI ‘uasneyjeeyos 
‘qd :48g1 ‘y0s,4NY “D 

"gogI ‘ysNg “5 

usyM pue Aq payiodey 

"(B4SP IN) 
auoq jo saoaid [jews swos 
pue y}00} B Jo sso] 94} 
Ajqeqoid Aqaisy} Sulley 
-jns ‘sayse jo dun] e wo1j 
pee1q “peq-yse paeqinjsip 
-un ut daap siaqowl I Avy 
‘"aAvd eNdIS 94} jo UOIS 
-U9}X9 [VII] E] MO] B ,,‘O]OY 

Jofpegd,, 94} Wolf poyeAPIX| 

YIM Sueusoyye aywisejeys 
jo ssoAe] Japun ‘wnisjoq 
‘queulq vou ‘aqqapnen 
PR] ap eno1y, ur s}sodap 

peqinjsipun wo1j pazyearoxy 

‘QAR9 B Ul AT[eJUSpIOOe punoy 

*Aiaq7 eq & JO JuBWDe/dUIAa 
ue JO} Suijse[q Suinp 91 

-AdI9 B ul ‘A]]BJUSpIooe punoy 


‘siead jy S19 ynoqe jo 
pryo e jo Mel Jamo] ay} JO 
qied jeqUOI ay} Jo JuaWISe1 

‘UPUIOM }[Npe SunoA 
e jo mel jamoy yasioduy] 
U0J2]a4s BY} JO sau0g 
€1 pue ‘sdeoynys ayeur yNpy 

‘(mel J9MO] WNOYIA) 
pesewep ‘][Nys yews} yNpy 

—Jo s}sIsuoo puly 

ie eysey “f ey 

SirotfewnistielsiceKel isi s1ai0qe’'] 

parsaoosip wmoym Ag 

took i eydi 
9981 “ayenen eT 
9SgI jeyqepurayy 
grgr |" aeyerqig 

eae puly jo aweNy 

a a se a i ee ee 


VOL. 83 



“1161 ‘yey 
‘Y ‘1161 ‘Woe “YA 
‘anog “JI ‘go61 
‘uopieg “| pue 
atuossAnog ‘f pue ‘Vy 

6061 ‘Yos}eR[y 
‘}] pue sesney ‘Oo 

*(saqzep snoriea) 

"6ggt ‘OUT “H 
*‘Z161 ‘ioreur 

-10qQ pure oosyoeg 
‘grey +6061 ‘o1mnzez 

“Lggi ‘ysayo] 

‘IN pue quodreiy *f[ 

usyM pue Aq poeyioday 

“‘Yyevay Juoioue 
‘QABD B JO OOP 9Y} jo 
[ios Ajzeul ay} Ul Snp uoTs 
-soidap & Ul ([PUIIOJ) [elIng 
-SnoJW 9] 3 ‘19}[9YS-4Y901 
JaMO] Ul ‘a5e UPTIBJSNO][ 
JO Stigap [e41n}j[Nd jo uorzR| 
-NUINnd9e Ue WO, payeAPOXY 
9u0}s pure ‘S[eUIUP JOUT}XO 
jo sauoq ‘aig jo suleulel 
YIIM ‘19}[9YS-YIOI pjo ue 
jo sSur|[y 94} Woy poyeavoxy 
‘aHUISeETeIs JO JaAe] e Aq 
poddeo ‘sjeumtue 4OUT}x9 jo 

-souog yyUM ‘ARID JuatouR UT 

CI ynoqge ‘aurVI9AeI) prey UT 
‘daap sisqour F ‘aoue1} 

-ud WO} JUeSIP Si9}oUr 
g pue g ‘aAed & JO UOIT 
UI ddRIJO] WO, payeAPoxy 


‘u0}a[a3S 9UO 
jo (smef y}0q WOIJ) 4390} LI 

*(pase-a[ppru ‘ayeur) u0,]ayxS 

qusosajope ue JO u0jaJe4S 


yi0q ‘3]npe-qns pue znpe) 
suojajays OZ JaAO jo s}ieg 

qnpe ‘sajeu ‘suojajays OM] | pue ypAng ap Jsore JV 

—JO s}sIsuoo puly 

pue ON “WIN o161 
‘uopieg "J 
pur ‘aruossAnog ‘[ 
‘gruossAnog “y seqqy go6r 
see oe ee eee Josnepy ‘O 061 
*‘JasIOqUIeIy Co61 pue 
-j1A0urli0r “y |‘66g1 ‘S6g1 
sikelele! e\ielel © yneusoy “A 6ggI 
*Jsoyo'] UIWIXe]y 
peraAoosip Woy Ag Toaeaae 


ayjedey eT 

Jaiysnoj aT 




z ‘ON pue 

I ‘ON Ads 

pury jo owen 

ee ee eee 






‘euney Areu 
“6261 ‘1319S °S -19}eN() YPM ‘eINI9IG BALD) 

‘(sajou “uitjeid) pot 
-1e9 “A VC SSN *91n}jNd UeT 

{(193J9Ys) [INeEIg 9qqy | -JeISNOJ, YM £19} [9YS-YIOY 

‘Lz61 ‘ysaiuepiay “| aulqiaaes} prey ut dveq 
‘L261 —|- UapOUr ay? MOJAq 422} 719 
‘yey InqVy ‘saAel O1yqoayed §=paqin} 

pue osjeg-ayfiainy “4 | -sipun jo aseq ay} 3 ‘QAR 

‘OZ6I ‘MOYIITA *(r9AR] paqeyeoiequl 
"H P161 ‘aqremyos “D | pue) eurz19AeI} prey UY daaq 

‘7161 ‘6061 *J9}[9YS-YOOI MOTLeYs 
‘Kuoshog pue ueyidesy | & ULsuOTze[NUINIIe JO Beq FV 

"(998 ‘JMS PIrYy9) staqep 
pue asnjar uayouy ut Ay 
-yred ! (‘039 ‘u0jJa]ay4S IN pe) 
wives Aq-1eau 934} jo 
‘Lz-1161 ‘uiqzey “H | peq-pnur juetoue ut Ajqieg 


uaym pue Aq payoday AIQAOOSIP UO BJep [eIJUSSy 

“mel IOMO] (Aye3]) 
JNoyIA ‘][Nys aeurey yNpy | UdUIYIO\ 6z61 "-9WOy IeIN 

‘a3e jo sivad 

ua} Moe Jo PyrYyd B JO [INAS | pose “A “Vv “C Sst gz61 Soe ae} eIg) 
ottets s ,rayostf) 

ynpe ue jo zyNeA uayxoIg | uawt Alen?) Cz6I jsopssuryy 

ay} Surpnpour ‘44jnpe sunoA 

B Jo [[Nys ay} Jo SjuoWIBeIy | °° 91}9q-9T[TAINL “A C26i- Me aait[ey 
“QuOg-YsIy} & : 
jo uorjiod ‘uojajaxs S,P[PY49 (193e] pue) | (sreUtT9\) 
e jo sureuiar ‘smef Jamoy z |" ‘uowAsren() |‘g161 ‘F161| jsopssursyy 
+ pue—aseulay e ‘ayeul Z161 pue |(ausopi0(q) 
e—s}npe z) suojzjeys 9 | *++*+*Kuorhag |‘O161 ‘6061| aissesi9j & 

Juaiayip) suozsjaxs [e419 
-Aas jo sjuaWsesy :(1Z61) 
piryo eB jo ynys +(z161) 

mel JaMO] +(II61 (é)aeur (aquarey)) 
-3J) yNpe ue jo woyeyYsS |" uIVII Wuey | 1z—-go6l euin(y eT 
—Jo s}sIsuoo puly paieaoosip woya Ag Pause pury jo sueN 

ee hr a eee ee 




Among the most famous of the skeletal remains representing early 
man are unquestionably the imperfect but highly characteristic speci- 
mens known as the Neanderthal skull and bones. This important 
find more than any other has aroused scientific men to an intense 
realization of the earlier phases of human evolution. The skull and 
to some extent also the other parts of the skeleton stand morpho- 
logically far below those of any existing type of man, being corre- 
spondingly nearer to lower primates; and their name has been 
deservedly taken to designate the entire early phase of mankind 
of which the skeleton is, as is now well known, a prototype. 

The skull, with most if not all the rest of the skeleton, was found 
in August, 1856." The bones were dug out accidentally by two labor- 
ers from an old cave located in the right wall of the Neander gorge, 
not far from its upper entrance. The gorge and the valley north of it 
have remained strangely but little known to anthropology. The writer 
had the good fortune to visit them in 1927.* Lying between Diissel- 
dorf (11 km.) and Elberfeld (16 km.), they form an unexpectedly 
beautiful bit of scenery, sunk beneath the level of a somewhat raised 
cultivated plain, and constitute one of the most interesting natural 
formations in western Germany. They have for generations been 
the favorite spots for school and other excursions. The valley and 
gorge were eroded in the limestone formations that underlie the 
surface by the small stream Diissel and its two branches. 

The gorge is said to have originally been called simply “ Gesteins ” 
(rocks). It was later named for Joachim Neander, a poet and song 
composer of the German Reformed Church, who loved to visit the 
gorge and probably the cave that eventually gave the skeleton, between 
the years 1674-1679. From about 1850 the term “‘ Neanderthal ” has 
been extended to both the gorge and the valley, as well as to the little 
village and railroad station at the edge of and within the valley. 
Today this whole beautiful depression constitutes the “‘ Natural Reser- 
vation Neanderthal,” which comprises the whole triangle between 
Erkrain, Mettmann, and Gruiten. 

*In many publications the date is erroneously given as 1857. 

*A very grateful acknowledgment of the facilities extended, original infor- 
mation and valuable illustrations, is due to the gentlemen of the Rheinish- 
Westfalishe Kalkwerke, Dornap; to Herr Peter Herring, supervisor of the 
quarrying works of the company; and to H. Lickoff, Lobbecke Museum, 


The gorge was bound by high rough cliffs of Devonian limestone, 
and since the early fifties of the last century it has been subjected to 
extensive quarrying that still proceeds. In the summer of 1856 the 
destruction reached the so-called ‘‘ Feldhoffer Grotte,’’ a somewhat 
extensive cave located in the right cliff not far from the “‘ Raven- 
stein” (isolated high rock still preserved). The mouth of the cave 
lay about 110 feet from the right bank of the stream and 60 feet above 
its level. 

According to local accounts the cave was in two parts; and as the 
laborers were clearing the loam out of the smaller they uncovered 
a human skeleton. Some parts of this were broken and the bones 
were thrown out together with the earth; later, however, upon the 
urging of the owner of the quarry after he was told of the find, the 

Ds ' 
The Dussel OlcA Gorge lat 

To Aasselaar} awe x ; aoe 


Fic. 13.—A sketch of the “ Naturschutzgebiet Neandertal,’ the vicinity of the 
Neanderthal find. 

workmen collected 14 pieces of the skull and skeleton, and these were 
given soon after into the hands of Dr. Fuhlrott of Elberfeld. 

The bones obtained by Dr. Fuhlrott comprised the skullcap, the 
femora, humeri, ulnae, right radius, portion of the left pelvic bone, 
portion of the right scapula, piece of the right clavicle, and five pieces 
of ribs (pls. 29-33). 

Soon after their discovery the skeletal remains of the Neander- 
thal man received the attention of Prof. D. Schaaffhausen, of Bonn, 
who on February 4, 1857, made a preliminary report upon them at 
the meeting of the Lower Rhine Medical and Natural History So- 
ciety, of Bonn." At the general meeting of the Natural History 

*Verhandl. d. naturhist. Vereins der preuss. Rheinliande und Westphalens, 
Vol. 14. Bonn, 1857. Also “ Zur Kenntniss der altesten Rassenschadel,” Miiller’s 
Archiv, p. 453 et seq., 1858. 


Society of Prussian Rhineland and Westphalia, at Bonn, on June 2, 

1857, Dr. Fuhlrott himself gave a full account of the locality of the 

find and of the circumstances under which the discovery was made. 
The principal details of Dr. Fuhlrott’s* report were as follows: 

A small cave or grotto, high enough to admit a man and about 15 feet deep 
from the entrance, which is 7 or 8 feet wide, exists in the southern wall of the 
gorge of the Neanderthal, as it is termed, at a distance of about 100 feet from 
the Diissel and about 60 feet above the bottom of the valley (fig. 3). In its 
earlier and uninjured condition this cavern opened upon a narrow plateau lying 
in front of it and from which the rocky wall descended almost perpendicularly 
to the river. It could be reached, though with difficulty, from above. The 
uneven floor was covered to a thickness'of 4 or 5 feet with a deposit of mud, 

Y, 4x Dussel R 

o 2 “ft 
iw yp ehett 


Fic, 14.—Section of the Neanderthal Cave near Diisseldorf. (After Lyell.) 

a, Cavern 60 feet above the Diissel, and 100 feet below the surface of the 
country at c. : 

b, Loam covering the floor of the cave near the bottom of which the human 
skeleton was found. 

b, c, Rent connecting the cave with the upper surface of the country. 

d, Superficial sandy loam. 

e, Devonian limestone. 
- f, Terrace, or ledge of rock. 

sparingly intermixed with rounded fragments of chert. In the removing of 
this deposit the bones were discovered. The skull was first noticed, placed 
nearest to the entrance of the cavern; and further in were the other bones lying 
in the same horizontal plane. Of this I was assured in the most positive terms 
by the two laborers who were employed to clear out the grotto, and who were 
questioned by me on the spot. At first no idea was entertained of the bones 
being human; and it was not till several weeks after their discovery that they 
were recognized as such by me and placed in security. But, as the importance 
of the discovery was not at the time perceived, the laborers were very careless 

* Ibid. Correspondenzblatt No. 2. The above follows G. Busks’s Translation 
of Schaaffhausen’s “ On the crania of the most ancient races of man,” Nat. Hist. 
Review, April, 1861. The main publication by Fuhlrott on the Neanderthal find 
appears in the monograph: “Der fossile Mensch aus dem Neanderthal und 
sein Verhaltniss zum Alter des Menschengeschlechts,” pp. 1-78, Duisburg, 1865. 


in the collecting and secured chiefly only the larger bones; and to this circum- 
stance it may be attributed that fragments merely of the probably perfect skele- 
ton came into my possession. 

Fuhlrott held that the Neanderthal bones might be regarded as 
“fossil,” by which he possibly meant not merely mineralized, but 
also as belonging to a form of humanity no more existing. A little 
later Prof. Schaaffhausen arrived at the following conclusions :* 

First, the extraordinary form of the skull was due to a natural conforma- 
tion, hitherto not known to exist even in the most barbarous races. Second, 
these remarkable human remains belonged to a period antecedent to the time 
of the Celts and Germans, and were in all probability derived from one of the 
wild races of northwestern Europe, spoken of by Latin writers, and which 
were encountered as autochthones by the German immigrants. And third, it 
was beyond doubt that these human relics were traceable to a period at which 
the latest animals of the Diluvium still existed; though no proof of this as- 
sumption, nor consequently of their so-termed fossil condition, was afforded by 
the circumstances under which the bones were discovered. 

In 1860 the Neanderthal gorge was visited, in company with Fuhl- 
rott, by Lyell, the English geologist and paleontologist, who made a 
sketch of the locality (fig. 14.) and we are given the following infor- 
mation:* Since the discovery of the bones— 

the ledge of rock, f, on which the cave opened, and which was originally 20 feet 
wide, had been almost entirely quarried away, and, at the rate at which the work 
of dilapidation was proceeding, its complete destruction seemed near at hand. 

In the limestone are many fissures, one of which, still partially filled with 
mud and stones, is represented in the section at a c as continuous from the 
cave to the upper surface of the country..... 

There was no crust of stalagmite overlying the mud in which the human 
skeleton was found, and no bones of other animals in the mud with the skele- 
ton; but just before our visit in 1860 the tusk of a bear had been met with in 
some mud in a lateral embranchment of the cave, in a situation precisely simi- 
lar to b, figure 3, and on a level corresponding with that of the human skeleton. 
This tusk, shown us by the proprietor of the cave, was 2} inches long and quite 
perfect; but whether it was referable to a recent or extinct species of bear, I 
could not determine. 

Following the early notices concerning the Neanderthal cranium, 
and before other specimens of similar nature, such as the Spy, Gi- 
braltar, and others became known, an extensive controversy arose as 
to the real significance of the find. Virchow,’ and after him others, 


* Lyell, Sir Charles, The geological evidences of the antiquity of man, 4th ed., 
p. 80 et seq., London, 1873. 

* Virchow, R., Untersuchung des Neanderthal-Schadels. Zeit. f. Ethnol., Vol. 4, 
Verhandl. Berl. Ges. f. Anthr., etc., pp. 157-165, 1872. 


were at first inclined to look upon the skull as pathological ; to Barnard 
Davis* its sutures appeared to show premature synostosis; while 
Blake * and his followers regarded the specimen as probably proceed- 
ing from an idiot. But there were also those, such as Schaaffhausen, 
Broca, and others, who from the beginning saw in the cranium (the 
other bones received at first but little attention) not any pathological 
or accidental monstrosity, but a peculiar, theretofore unknown type of 
ancient humanity. Then gradually new examples of this same early 
type appeared in different parts of Europe, under circumstances which 
steadily strengthened the claim of the whole class to geological 
antiquity ; and when eventually a thorough comparative study of the 
Neanderthal remains was carried out by modern methods and in 
view of new knowledge, the cranium and bones were definitely recog- 
nized as representing, in a normal and most characteristic way, a 
most interesting earlier phase or variety of mankind, our later Qua- 
ternary predecessor or close relative, Homo neanderthaiensis, The 
credit for deserving work in this field is due especially to Prof. G. 
Schwalbe, of Strassburg, whose numerous publications on the early 
forms of human remains in Europe are well known to every anthro- 

The remains of the Neanderthal skeleton are preserved in the 
Provincial Museum at Bonn, where, due to the courtesy of the di- 
rector, Professor Hans Lehner, the writer was enabled to examine 
the originals and later have them photographed. 


The skull (pls. 29-31) is gray in color, with large mud-brownish or 
gray-sepia patches on the outside, and whitish gray to whitish brown 
on the inside. It is decidedly heavy and much mineralized. It is plainly 
non-pathological. The sagittal suture has evidently closed earlier than 
it ordinarily does in the civilized modern man, but this must have 
taken place after the brain ceased to influence the cranial vault, for 
it resulted in no perceptible deformation. The coronal suture is 

* Davis, J. Barnard, The Neanderthal skull, etc., London, 1864. 

* Blake, C. Carter, On the alleged peculiar characters and assumed antiquity 
of the human cranium from the Neanderthal. Journ. Anthrop. Soc., London, 
Vol. 2, pp. 139-157, 1864; also Mem. Anthrop. Soc., London, Vol. 2, p. 74, 1866. 

* Those especially worthy of mention in this connection are: Ueber die Scha- 
delformen der Altesten Menschenrassen, mit besonderer Beriicksichtigung des 
Schidels von Egisheim. Mitteilungen der philomathischen Gesellschaft in 
Elsas-Lothringen. 5, Jahrg., Vol. 3, 1807; and Der Neandertalschadel, Bonner 
Jahrbiicher, Heft 106; 72 Stn. 1 Tafel, 1oor. 


obliterated up to the temporal ridges, while the lambdoid is still 
patent. Similar conditions to these are not seldom met with in the 
skulls of persons beyond the fiftieth year of life, and if not attended 
by scaphocephaly or other consequent deformation, cannot be re- 
garded as abnormal. The serration of the lambdoid suture is decidedly 
simpler than in modern human skulls. 

The facial and basal parts are lacking. The vault shows very good 
dimensions in length and breadth, but is strikingly low, and the bones 
are considerably thicker than in the white man of to-day, so that the 
brain cavity was only moderate. 

Besides its lowness the vault is characterized by a very decided 
protrusion of the whole supraorbital region. The supraorbital 
torus or arch formed through this protrusion is heavier than in any 
other known example of the Homo neanderthalensis. The line from 
glabella to the naso-frontal articulation is relatively extensive and 
passes considerably backward besides downward, indicating a very 
marked depression at the root of the nose, not unlike that which is 
present in the adult gorilla. Due also to the forward extension of 
the supraorbital arch, the upper parts of the planes of the orbits face 
very perceptibly downward, while in present man they face some- 
what upward or approach the vertical. The remarkable extent of the 
protrusion of the supra-orbital region may be judged by the fact 
that the horizontal distance from the most prominent point of the 
glabella to the nearest point on the ventral surface of the lower frontal 
region measures 3 cm. The frontal process descends deep between 
the orbits and is very stout. 

The forehead is low and also slopes markedly backward, neverthe- 
less it presents a moderately-well defined convexity. The sagittal 
region is oval from side to side, much like that in man of to-day ; 
the occiput, however, is marked by a relatively high location of the 
crest and other peculiarities. The outline of the vault, as looked at 
from above, is a long ovoid. The thickness of the frontal bone at the 
eminences is 8.5 mm.; of the left parietal, along a line 1 cm. above 
the squamous suture, 6 to 8 mm.; these measurements are about one- 
third greater than those of the skull of an average modern European. 

The principal external dimensions of the cranium, taken carefully 
with two separate instruments, were found to differ slightly from 
some of those recorded, but agree closely with those of Schwalbe. 
They are shown in the table on the following page. 

The lowness of the vault, in the absence of the basion, was 
measured, as seen on the antero-posterior outline of the skull, from 
a line connecting the most prominent point of the glabella and the 


inion to the highest point of the vault. This feature is shown especially 
strikingly by the “calotte index,” or percental relation of the two 


Neanderthal Corresponding 
Dimensions dimensions in 
a Tae > oa a nee | Gaemodernimnale 
Schwalbe Hrdli¢ka white skull 
cm. cm. cm. 

Glabella-inionlengthzs- 42-2 ee 19.9 on 18.7 

Greatest length (glabella ad max.)... uF 20.1 18.8 

“True” length (discounting the excess 
of the supraorbital torus) to inion. . 18.6 aie oe 

SGU Length pmaxces erent Rhee 18.8 18.8 

Greatestebreadthwea ase 14.7 14.7 ys 7/ 

Cranial index (with Schwalbe’s length) 73.9 hada 

Cranial index (with length max.).... was! AG ih 

Cranial index (with ‘‘true’’ length to 
intone (Schwalbe) tanscee Gemeente 79.0 

Cranial index (with ‘‘true’’ max. 
lenatha(rirdlicka)) ase eke eee eo 78 .2 78.2 

Brain) cavity: Length maxs....4-<. oe 17.5! near 17.2 ed: 

Breadth max.) see se: D7 near 13.5 13.8 
Iindexhs.osceseh ee ee 78 .3 near 78.5 70.3 

Height (from glabella-inion line to 
VETCEX) STH AR ee enone 8.05 pases 10.5 

Calottesindex: (HX 100) 4244.5. 54-5: 40.4 ee 50.1 

Gl. =In. L. 

Thickness of skull: At glabella....... Bare near 30 mm. 14 mm. 
of parietals (Squammae).......... a 6to 8mm. | 4 to 6 mm. 
of frontal, at eminences........... or 8.5 mm. 5 to 7 mm. 

Nasion=breemardiam. 1425)... ee ee 11.62 11.72 II.0 

Bregma-lambday diam .o)..+..1.4-5c 10.4 10.3 11.5 

Wamibda-imtOn ais. \an.< 2 eye aes eee a2 Rist ote ope 

Lambda-mid-point of occipital crest? ayes 5.4 6.4 

Diam:frontaloniin./ss%24.. see. woo 10.74 a7 / 9.8 

Diam frontalimaxs.'s 005)... Joe ee 12.3 12.4 

Indexs (DS framing S<iTOO)e semen sae MITE 57.0 79.0 


: 1 These dimensions, it would seem, must have been taken on a cast; they do not harmonize 
with the thickness of the skull. 

* This diameter is larger than in modern skulls because of the carrying forward of the nasion 
by the excessive supraorbital protrusion (torus). 

3 The crest turns upward in its mid-portion; if it formed a regular arc the diameter from lambda 
to the mid-point (inion) would be 5.6 cm. 
4 Large because of the great thickness of bone here. 

dimensions. In modern crania the distance from the g-i line to the 
highest point of the skull measures invariably materially more, and 
the index is invariably much higher, than in the Neanderthal skull. 


The actual height of the latter is but 8.05 cm. (Schwalbe), the index 
4o.4. One hundred and seven recent adult human skulls of various 
derivation gave heights of from 8.40 to 11.70 cm., and indices of 
from 52 to 68." 

The internal capacity of the skull has been estimated by Schaaff- 
hausen at 1,033 cc., by Huxley at 1,230 cc., and by Schwalbe at 
T2234 CG. 

The brain which filled the skull was lower and narrower and slightly 
more pointed than the human brain of to-day, approaching in these 
features more the anthropoid form. The right frontal lobe was 
slightly larger and longer than the left, and the whole right hemi- 
sphere was slightly longer than that of the opposite side. In the present 
man it is generally the left hemisphere which is the longer, but this 
exception in the Neanderthal man is not necessarily of any special 

The long and other bones of the skeleton (pls. 32, 33), so far as 
preserved, show many features of anthropological inferiority, demon- 
strating plainly that not merely the skull, but the whole body of the 
Neanderthal man occupied a more or less lower evolutionary stage + 
than that of any normal human being of the historic times. Yet there 
is much also that connects closely with later and present man. 


The humerus——The two humeri, right and left, do not appear at 
first to belong to the same person; the right is much stronger in every 
particular, and of somewhat different conformation, the differences 
occurring in the inner condyle, in the evident damage to the articular 
facets on left; in the neighborhood of coronoid fossa; in the ole- 
cranon fossa—much larger on left (2.7 x 2.1 cm.) ; in the form of 
shaft ; and in the deltoid tubercle which is much better developed on 
right. Also color unlike. But the left bone belongs to an ulna with an 
old injury to head and both have suffered from subdeveiopment as 
well as in the formation of the articular parts. 

The shape of the shaft in both bones nears the prismatic, but the 
antero-medial and external surfaces are decidedly convex, espe- 
cially in the right well-developed humerus. This is a condition that 
could hardly be duplicated in recent bones. There is no perforation 
of the olecranon fossa. There is a marked notch (demi-foramen) in 
each epicondylar border, lower down than usual with the epicondy- 

* Schwalbe, G., Studien iiber Pithecanthropus erectus Dubois. Z. Morph. und 
Anthrop., Vol. 1, pp. 43-45, 1809. 


loid notch or foramen today ; quite similar in the two bones. Proces- 
sus supracondyloideus—no trace on left; on right bone low rugosity. 

The damage on left does not seem to have been a complete fracture, 
but more a crushing one in the outer part of the articular facet and 
anterior and outer part about the coronoid fossa, the injury taking 
place probably when the subject was quite young. 

The ulna.—tLeft ulna: head was broken early in life, at the same 
time that the humerus was injured, but was well healed and joint 
was useful. Body quite straight, shape prismatic, with slight indica- 
tion of external (fourth) border and slightly concave on both antero- 
median and antero-lateral surfaces. . 

Right ulna: more than one-half missing; in upper third was bent 
backwards more than left; bones of about same strength. 

Radius.—Right bone alone. Pronounced arching outward in middle 
third ; otherwise not extraordinary. 

The clavicle-—The piece of right male clavicle shows that the bone 

» was longer than in modern man but of submedium thickness. It dif- 
fers from modern bones also in the form of the shaft, which proxi- 
smally is clearly prismatic, and in the distal extremity beyond the 
coracoid tuberosity, where the bone was relatively thicker but decid- 
edly narrower than are modern male clavicles. There is no deltoid 
tubercle, and the anterior curvature in this place is more pronounced 
than in modern bones. 

The scapula.—Present, a portion of the right bone, including the 
glenoid cavity. Original notes: The bone is strong but not excessively 
so. The glenoid cavity seems to be inclined somewhat more backward 
than in modern bones. The dorsal surface of the axillary border 
shows a somewhat marked secondary ridge for the insertion of teres 
minor. For comparative notes see Boule’s Memoir on the La Chapelle 
Remains, 1913, pp. 121, 124. 

The ribs—Present, five pieces of ribs. Some of the fragments 
are stout, one measuring 17 mm. in breadth and 11 mm. in thickness. 
One piece of a rib shows a slight circular thinning of the bone (noticed 
also by Bardeleben), probably representing an old fracture. 

The pelvis—trThe pelvis, with other portions of the skeleton, has 
been studied especially by Klaatsch (see bibliography). The writer’s 
original notes, which quite agree with those of Klaatsch but point 
out some additional features, are as follows: 

Present, the larger part of the left os innominatum; missing, the 
pubic parts. The bone is powerful, especially in region of ileo- 
pectineal line and at the sacral articulation. Ilium rather flat, high, 
and bent more outward from the i-p line than in modern pelves. 


Greater sciatic notch masculine, deep, not narrow. Breadth of bone 
between anterior border of the greater sciatic notch and the anterior 
border of the cotyloid cavity less than in recent bones. Notch ante- 


Neanderthal Means in 965 
American Whites 
Schwalbe! Hrdliéka? Hrdliéka 
R LE R. L R E 
cm. cm. cm. cm. cm, cm. 
Humerus: Length max....... 3122 as 31.0 |(Injury)| 32.66 | 32.40 
Head: Transverse diam....| 4.8 Bas 4.8 
Sagietalidiamc(c:fsc sass BAGH eb 70 4.7 
At middle: Antero-post. 
(or min, diam: cc<><. =. a sod apes TE QOw |e Gte7)) 1.89 1.86 
Rateral (orimax,) diam. .|) 2.55 | .... B55, | (2-05) | east ZUoT 
rx eee einen ey: ae 74.5 | (82.9) | 81.9 | 84.1 
Shape of shaft at middle | .... UAT: near POG Lh 
type 13 
Epicondylar, distal end, eer ssn 6.3 6.44 6.45 | 6.3 
Ulna: Length max., Injury 
Bat iiated pr. say svccnisl «cies 27d a(-23,7)) 
At middle: Antero-post. 
PDEA a reuse ees sien x oye aa Bee 1.35 
Bateral' diam)! 6. .2 a... sae ree ay BeASe | eas oe ee 
(526 in|divids.) 
Radius: Length max........| 23.8 we ea ® Pattee | BAC OTN 23682 
Radio-humeral index......} .... eee Lea ieee aR OR ee Tem 
At middle: Antero-post. 
iain eee eee becca ee es el eae 1.20 
Transverse diam........ TGSt i) HAA Tessie 

! Der Neanderthalschadel, Jahrb. Ver. Altertsfr. Rheinh., r901, Heft 106. 

2 Original measurements, 1912. 

3 Regular prismatic, with the medial-anterior and lateral surfaces convex. : 

4 Probable transposition of figures. The right bone is throughout larger. The excess of the right 
epicondylar breadth over the left is well shown also in the casts. 

5 Probably excessive. 

6 The slight differences between the measurements by the two observers are doubtless due to 
slight differences in method. The cast, which as usual is slightly larger than the original in all 
dimensions, measures 1.25 x 1.60. The measurements I take are: for the transverse—the maximum; 
for the antero-posterior—the bone so placed that its sharp medial border is midway between the 
branches of the sliding compass. 

riorly between the anterior-inferior spine of the ilium and the ilio- 
pectineal eminence broader and deeper, and the eminence itself more 
pronounced, than in modern ilia. The articular part of the acetabulum 
is decidedly less extensive antero-superiorly, and forms in consequence 


considerably less of a circle, than in recent ossa innominata ; and the 
shape of the fossa acetabuli is different. The postero-superior border 
of the obturator foramen differs also rather materially from that in 
recent bones ; it presents a marked triangular point above the cotyloid 
notch, and is markedly obtuse in its lower half. Other minor peculi- 
arities of the bone appear to fall within the range of its present 

The femur—The Neanderthal femora differ markedly from those 
of the average present man. Their distinctive features could not 
collectively be duplicated today, in some instances not even indi- 

The head is large and more globular than in modern man. The 
neck is stout and rather short, and the angle it forms with the shaft 
is less oblique than in most recent femora. The connecting bridge of 
bone between the great trochanter and the neck is stouter than in 
most recent bones; the trochanteric fossa is larger than in modern 
man. The trochanter minor is prominent and located more mesially 
than in most modern femora; this is especially the case on the right. 
The sub-trochanteric flattening and bellying is but moderate, espe- 
cially on the right. The upper third of the shaft shows a distinct bend 
outward (medial convexity inward); this is either absent or but 
slightly represented in normal recent femora. The whole shaft shows 
a marked uniform arching forward, reaching from the level of the 
trochanter minor to the condyles; such curve, to such a degree, is 
but rarely found in normal modern bones. The gluteal insertion is 
marked by a somewhat irregular oblong blunt ridge, pronounced in its 
upper portion which reaches to and upon the great trochanter; it 
would be hard to duplicate such a condition in modern femurs. The 
linea aspera is relatively but slightly developed ; this is rare in strong 
male modern bones. The shape of the shaft at the middle is inter- 
mediate beween cylindrical and oval. The popliteal space in both bones 
is very distinctly convex except in the lowermost portion, which 
is flat to very slightly concave; the fullness (convexity) of the upper 
two-thirds of the space, to this degree, could hardly be duplicated in 
modern femora; it recalls the femur of the Pithecanthropus, though 
the convexity of the latter is even greater. 

The lower end of the femur is very distinctive: the lateral condyles 
rise decidedly higher above the mesial than is the case in modern 
femora; the anterior portion of the intercondylar notch is markedly 
concave, especially on the right, while in modern femora its outline 
from side to side is convex-concave-convex. 


400 American 
Schwalbe Hrdli¢ka Whites (misc.) 
r. l. fis L. tee L 
cm. om. | (cm. cm. | cm. cm. 
Femur: Length, bicondylar........ 43.9! [44.05 143.7 [43.9 144.79 [44.81 
Stature, estimated’... i250 ccncs ; TOAR OMI Sheen |e eee lke eee 
Humero-femoral index.......... RM le ees, \7 Ded nas au Zena ee 
Heads Dilantaimaxr eee ates PA eee 53 Se SaaS é 
Diam. infero-superior......... Bea sed 8.35 S25 
Diam. transverse (antero-post.)|(5.05)| 5.2 | dam- | 5.25 
Necks Diaimimaxe eee en rewr Ree AsO 5m less 
Pascoe ss) eee ees Sok BuO. -\ 228 
At middle: Diam. antero-post....| 3.1 awl 2.05: |) 3-05 
Diam. transverse............. 2.953| 3.053| 2.9 | 3.0 iyi Ni AepeNeaee 
Meantdiamya anasto eee. 2198) |)3).02) | 21-89) |p2.90 
Index of strength 
ee FOOW ferent wer ipet (66.5 |\08-0. \Od. 4a) Oda 
Girciimferenee.!. 2:50 66.88 Gea egvo yl O.4) | 9.6 
Below trochanter minor:4 
Diam antero-poste arin ae SeORu|e2n95 
Diam {ransverses gwen. <4. BAe N32 55 
Subtrochanteric flattening: 
DATE AM Te eee te are hc or 2.8 7 25:60) 2a770 
Dian senate allt eeu, A bea a | aa S alk aeeats 
Nar Gx ese pe seh certs etic aches ele 70 82.8 | 83.3 
Lower end: Epicondylar breadth 
TILA rcs porters seus eaten tetiest ons SS5. WSh5 se SS° | S.8° 
Condyles: Diam. max. lateral: 
Mesial condyle: ...+......0... Bas al 4020 
Bateralicoudyle yo. 22 2c. 3.05 | 3.05 
Diam. antero-post.: 
Mesialicondylensss.4e0 san Reece aN OO 720 
Materalicondyles eee aoe Tee AM Tee Aen gice2 oy (hy ts S 

When bones lie on the condyles, 

the lateral rises above the 

TMESIA Dyed a eee eee an | eee | atktyal on aaitad 
In same natural position head of 

left bone is higher from the 

horizontal than the right ‘by:...|/.... | i-.. | .---.|3 mm. 
Inclination of the diaphysis to the 

RERAN Berne eR cs 4d ee, 84° 85° 
Anpleloipneckge.s 2 pic als ad oc meet: TOM eUnos 

1 In the posthumous work of Schwalbe on the Pithecanthropus femur, Z. Morph. u. Anthrop. 
Vol. 21, p. 354, 1921, the mean length of the Neanderthal femur is given as 43.8 cm., which cor- 
responds exactly to the mean length of the writer’s measurements. é 

2 Using the quotient 26.8, obtained by Hrdli¢ka on bodies of 100 male Americans. 

3 The figures are printed reversed, namely 3.05 and 2.95, which is clearly an error; the left 
shaft is the stronger (see circumference), and the casts of the bones confirm the matter. 

4 These are not the same measurements as those that follow; the writer takes, as the most useful, 
the minimum and maximum dimensions of the flattening. ae 

5 Here is a rather material difference between the measurements of Schwalbe and the writer's 
which must be due to some difference in method. The writer’s measurements represent the maximum 
obtainable epicondylar breadth taken by the stouter branches of an accurate compass glissiére. 

12 159 


The medial superior surface of the mesial condyle, which is gener- 
ally fuller to convex in modern femora, is concave in both of the 
Neanderthal bones (especially in the right) ; the outlines of the fossae 
of the condyles differ somewhat from those in modern femora. The 
anterior surface of the lower portion of the shaft, slightly over 3 cm. 
above the middle of the border of the articular surface, shows plainly 
on each side, but especially well marked on the left side, a patellar 
fossa close to 12 mm. in length but somewhat less in breadth; 
such fossae are very rare in recent femora. 


The long and other bones of the Neanderthal ‘skeleton, as far as 
preserved, show many features of anthropological difference from 
and inferiority to the corresponding parts of recent man, indicating 
plainly that not merely the skull, but the whole body of the Neander- 
thal man occupied a lower evolutionary stage than that of any normal 
human being of historic times. 

The bones in general indicate a powerful musculature, and broad 
and strong chest, combined with a somewhat submedium stature. 


Brake, C. Carter. On the alleged peculiar characters ‘and assumed antiquity 
of the human cranium from the Neanderthal. Journ. Anthrop. Soc. London, 
Vol. 2, pp. 139-157, 1864. 

Bonnet. Der Litcke zwischen der Neandertal- und Cro-Magnongruppe, sowie 
dem Skelett von Combe Capelle. Verhandl. d. anat. Gesellsch., Vol. 30, 
p. 134, Jena, 1921. 

Bourse, Marcettin. L’homme fossile de La Chapelle-aux-Saints, Paris, 1913. 

CZEKANOWSKI, JAN. Zur Differentialdiagnose der Neandertalgruppe. Kor- 
respondenzbl. d. Deutsch. Gesellsch. f. Anthropol., Vol. 9, 5 S, mit 3 Tabellen, 

Davis, Barnarp. The Neanderthal skull. Journ. Anthrop. Soc., Vol. 3, No. 15, 
London, 1865. 

De Quartreraces, A., ET Hamy, E. T. Crania ethnica, pp. 11-15, 1882. 

Fuutrott, C. Uber die Kalksteinschichten in der unmittelbaren Umgebung der 
kleineren Feldhofer Grotte im Neanderthal, in welcher (Sommer 1856) 
fossile Reste eines menschlichen Skeletts, der sog. Homo Neanderthalensis 
aufgefunden wurde. Verhandl. d. naturh. Ver. d. preuss. Rheinl. u. West- 
phal., 25. Korrespondenzblatt, S. 62-70, Jahrg. 1868. 

HrpourcKa, ALES. The Neanderthal phase of man. (The Huxley Memorial 
Lecture.) Journ. Roy. Anthrop. Inst., Vol. 57, pp. 249-274, London, 1927. 

Hux ey, T. H. On some fossil remains of man, pp. 118-159, London, 1863. 

Krinc. The reputed fossil man of the Neanderthal. Quart. Journ. Sci., 1864. 



ay} Aq payeuop ydessojoyd) “HYD 9y} JO soeVF 94} JO FEY Io] oy} Jo yuory ul Ae] ‘AeVMe po}Se[q VOUTS SUOT 
‘paIIAODSIP SBM UOJIJIYS JUSOUR 94} YIYM Ul ‘VARI JOVOYPLOA 94.L ‘A]juaoe1 ‘yeyjsapueaN eY} JO YO Ho] ey L 


(Jeulsiio oyi Woy poydersojoyd ) “AIA opis “][HYS [eYy}topueaN 94 L 



The Neanderthal skull, top view. (Photographed for the Smithsonian 
Institution from the orig:nal.) 

(jeulsi110 oy} Wosy paydersojoyd) “Meld Yor qpnys [eyjepueanN 

LE “Id ‘€8 “10A 


(Photographed tor 

The femur, scapula and ileac bone of the Neanderthal skeleton. 
the Smithsonian Institution from the original. ) 

(‘jeurs110 94} Wor UwoT}NIysUyT 
UBIUOSY}WIS oy} Joy paydessojoyg ) “UOJIPoyS [eY}WJopueaN ey} JO Xes0y} pue Squat] Jaddn oy} Wo1f sauog 



KraatscuH, H. Die fossilen Knochenreste des Menschen und ihre Bedeutung 
fir das Abstammungs-Problem, Erg. d. Anat. u. Entwicklungsgesch., 
Vol. 9, pp. 415-496, 1900. E 

Das Gliedmassenskelett des Neanderthalmenschen. Verh. Anat. Ges. 

Kong. Bonn., Erganzhft. z. Anat. Anz., Erginzh., Vol. 19, pp. 121-154, 1901. 

Die Fortschritte der Lehre von den fossilen Knochenresten des Men- 
schen in den Jahren 1900-1903. Erg. d. Anat. u. Entwicklungsg., Vol. 12, 

Das Gesichtsskelett der Neandertalrasse und der Australier. Ver- 
handlungen der Anatomischen Gesellschaft in Berlin, 1908; Erganzhft. z. 
Anatom. Anz., Vol. 32, p. 223, 1908. 

LrEcLERQ, SUZANNE. La courbure femoral. Travaux des Laboratoires de 
Paleont. et de Anthrop., Univ. Liege, Vol. I, 63 pp., 1927. 

Lyett, Cu. The antiquity of man, pp. 75-79, 1863. 

OPPENHEIM, STEFANIE. Das Gehirn des Homo Neandertalensis sive primi- 
genius. Die Naturwissenschaften. Heft 40. 3. 10, pp. 955-058, 1913. 

Raurr, HerMANN. Uber die Altersbestimmung des Neandertaler Menschen und 
die geologischen Grundlagen dafur. Verh. des Naturh. Ver. der preuss. 
Rheinl. u. Westf., Taf. I, 60, Jahrg., S. 11-90, 1903. 

SCHAAFFHAUSEN, D. On the crania of the most ancient races of man (from 
Muller’s Archiv, 1858). With remarks and original figures, taken from a 
cast of the Neanderthal cranium. By George Busk. Nat. Hist. Rev., pp. 155- 
176, 2 pls., 1861. 

Fernere Bemerkungen tiber die menschlichen Uberreste aus dem Juli 

Heft der Natural History Review, tibersetzt von Prof. Dr. Fuhlrott. Archiv 

fur Anatomie, Physiologie, etc., pp. 1-24, Jahrg., 18065. 

Uber einen Fund zahlreicher fossiler Knochen und Zahne einer Grotte, 
der sog. Teufelskammer in Neanderthal. Verhandl. d. naturhist. Vereins 
der preussischen Rheinlande u. Westfalens. 23. Sitzungsberichte der nied- 
errh. Gesellsch., S. 14-15 und 32, Jahrg., 1866. Sitzungsberichte S. 136, 
Jahrg., 1875. 

ScHWALBE, G. Der Neanderthalschadel. Jahrb. d. Ver. v. Altertsfr. im Rheinl., 
Heft 106. Taf. I, 72 pp., 1900. 

Uber die spezifischen Merkmale des Neandertalschadels. Verhandl. der 
Anat. Gesellschaft. Bonn, pp. 44-61. Erganzhft. z. Anat. Anz., Vol. 10, 1901. 

Sottas, W. J. On the cranial and facial characters of the Neanderthal race. 
Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London, Ser. B, Vol. 199, pp. 281-330, 1907. 

Turner, W. The fossil skull controversy: On human crania allied in anatomical 
character to the Engis and Neanderthal skulls. Quart. Journ. Sci., 1864. 

Wyman, J. Observations on crania. Proc. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., Boston, 
Vol. 11, pp. 461, 462, 1868. 


This very valuable specimen is preserved in the Museum of the 
Royal College of Surgeons, England, where, thanks to the courtesy 
of the curator, Sir Arthur Keith, the writer has been able to examine 
it repeatedly and have it photographed. 


The history of the specimen is, regrettably, somewhat defective. 
The first mention of it occurs in Falconer’s Paleontological Memoirs,’ 
in 1868, where, on page 561 of Volume 2, speaking of various anthro- 
pological and other finds at Gibraltar, the author says: 

One of the human skulls yielded by the rocks many years since appears to us 
to point to a time of very high antiquity. In fact, it is the most remarkable and 
perfect example of its kind now extant. In the absence of a properly organized 
museum no record exists of the precise circumstances under which this inter- 
esting relic was found, and that it has been preserved at all may be considered a 
happy accident; it has cost us much labor, and with but partial success, to 
endeavor to trace its history on the spot where it turned up. 

Besides this, Falconer remarks in a letter to a relative, referring 
to the skull: “ It is a case of a very low type of humanity—very low 
and savage and of extreme antiquity—but still man... . . 

Taking all the available data into consideration,’ it appears that the 
skull was accidentally discovered as early as 1848, therefore eight years 
before the Neanderthal cranium made its appearance, in the ‘‘ Forbes 
Quarry, situated on the north base of the Rock of Gibraltar.” Ac- 
cording to Keith,’ it was ‘‘ quarried out of the terrace under the north 
face of the rock,” a terrace formed of solidified breccia, consisting of 
the débris of weathering of the limestone cliff and fine wind-blown 
sand. The part of the terrace where the cranium lay was possibly 
in former times the floor of a cave. Part of a cave still exists behind 
the site of the discovery, and this was explored in 1911 by Duckworth, 
but without results. It is certain that the skull showed, and to some 
extent presents to this day, a hard stony matrix adhering to its surface 
and filling its cavities. Broca, to whom we owe the first descriptive 
account of the specimen,’ says that it was taken out of a “ very com- 
pact and adherent gangue,” from which it was disengaged with much 
difficulty. The photographs published with Broca’s account show still 
very noticeable remnants of the stony matrix (see also pl. 34). 

The skull was presented to the Gibraltar Scientific Society by Lieut. 
Flint, then its secretary, but for many years received no scientific 
attention. In 1862 it came to England, with the collections from the 

*Falconer, Hugh, Paleontological Memoirs and Notes, 2 vols., London, 
1868; also Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. London, Vol. 21, p. 369, 1865. 

* Op. cit., p. 561, footnote. 

*Compare Keith, A., The early history of the Gibraltar cranium. Nature, 
PP. 313-314, I9II. : 

* Ancient Types of Man, p. 121, 19011. 

* Broca, P., Cranes et ossements humains des cavernes de Gibraltar. Bull. 
Soc. d’Anthropol. Paris, 2d séries, Vol. 4, p. 154, 1869. 


ee BWririsym Lacs 

~~. ' 


Y) y f nes 
aa Y PDevrcs 


STH Tower 


U (ety 

( \ ‘ohh \ 

: arash 
ae . ey M, 
pe rn INAATIN'S Cave 
B WCEP mee Cave 
Wietx \ SS Moneys’ Cave 
| Ju Dee's Lee, 
Cave @ a | 
N Senistaly 0 
(fWopntu. & YSENISTA 4 
a Dn Ve 3 
x Wf 
PS ea « y/ 
¥ 27/2 \\ ( 

/ ir \ 
/ Wo /, 
\ AS 

i tp 
\\ Europe ~ Vy 
\i\ Furs 

\ ( 



Fic. 15.—The Rock of Gibraltar: sites of both Forbes Quarry (skeleton, 1848), 
and Devil’s Tower (skeleton of child, 1926). (After Miss Garrod, 1928. ) 



Gibraltar caves, and was studied to some extent by Busk and Falconer. 
The latter, perceiving how much it differed from recent human skulls, 
proposed to refer it to a distinct variety of man, Homo colpicus, after 
Calfé, the old name of Gibraltar. Finally in 1868 Busk presented the 
cranium to the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 
where it is still preserved. 

The first descriptive account of the specimen was published, as 
mentioned above, by Broca, but at that time the adhering stony matrix 
prevented any attempts at accurate measurements. Subsequently it 
received attention by Huxley, De Quatrefages and Hamy, and later 
from Macnamara, Klaatsch, Schwalbe, Sollas, Sera, and Keith, as well 
as the writer. It is a very remarkable specimen which, even though the 
geological and paleontological evidence relating to its antiquity is 
imperfect, does not allow for one moment of any doubt as to its repre- 
senting an early human form; and its characteristics are such that 
it is now universally regarded as a representative, possibly a very 
early one, of Homo neanderthalensis. 

The cranium is grayish-white to yellowish in color, and is consider- 
ably mineralized and heavier than normal. The stony matrix has been 
so far removed that all important determinations and measurements 
which the defective state of the bones permit may now be made. 
Fortunately the facial region, the frontal bone, and most of the right 
side of the skull, includine the back, are relatively well preserved ; 
the top of the vault on the other hand shows a large defect, and the 
left parietal, temporal and sphenoid parts, together with much of the 
base, are lost. With all the defects, sufficient of the skull remains 
to permit of a number of valuable determinations on the skull and 
as to the brain, and also a fairly correct reconstruction. 

The aspect of the face is semi-human, apish. The mid-portion from 
the glabella downward protrudes forward more than in normal skulls, 
as a result of which the planes of the orbits as well as the planes of the 
malars slope more outward and backward than they do in modern 
crania. The line from the nasion to the point of intersection of the 
external and fronto-malar suture gives in a modern female skull an 
inclination from the horizontal of 11°; in the Gibraltar cranium the 
same inclination is close to 20°. 

Other very striking features of the face are the relatively huge 
(for a female) supraorbital arch; the very large orbits ; the stoutness 
of the medial process of the frontal bone; the complete absence 
of suborbital (canine) fossae; the broad nose; and the dental arch 
with long teeth. The supraorbital arch measures nearly 12 cm. in 
breadth, and from approximately 12 to over 15 mm. in thickness 


above the orbits. It does not greatly protrude forward, as it does in 
the male Neanderthal skulls, nevertheless it represents a true and 
rather huge torus, such as is wholly unknown in recent crania. The 
orbits are very large, irregularly circular in outline. They are sepa- 
rated by the stout median process of the frontal, with a large glabellar 
swelling and space above; the bones forming their external boundary 
are markedly broader than in modern skulls. The orbital borders, 
especially the mesial half of the inferior ones, are more or less dull 
and stout. The nasal bones are broad, not long, and moderately arched 
from side to side. The nasal aperture is strikingly broad, but not 
negroid ; its lower borders were evidently fairly sharp, and there are 
evidences of a good-sized spine. The side walls of the aperture and 
the nasal bones are very perceptibly thicker than they are in modern 
skulls. A remarkable feature which gives the face its characteristic 
appearance is the fullness, to mild convexity, of the suborbital 
(canine) fossae and of the nasal processes of the maxilla. All these 
parts look as if inflated from behind. 

The upper alveolar process was broad and originally probably fairly 
high. It has suffered from absorption and damage so that the roots of 
the remaining teeth in the anterior half of the arch are nearly fully 
exposed. The teeth, though considerably worn off, appear very long. 
A very interesting condition is the absence of the two median incisors. 
As there is no sign of any decay, and the alveolar process shows a 
characteristic absorption notch at this place, it would seem that the 
two teeth must have been lost long before the death of the individual, 
and that presumably through some violence. This condition recalls 
forcibly the ceremonial knocking out of these incisors (and sometimes 
also other teeth) in the negro, Australian, and other primitive peoples. 

Added to these facial peculiarities of the skull is its low and sloping 
forehead. The ensemble presents a picture of phylogenetic inferi- 
ority which, taking into consideration the fact that this is unquestion- 
ably the skull of a female, is not quite equalled by any other specimens 
of Neanderthal origin thus far discovered ; though it is true that the 
facial features are preserved in only a few of the specimens belonging 
to this great period. 

The vault of the skull is especially noteworthy on account of its 
lowness, and through a peculiar formation of the occiput. The poste- 
rior parietal and upper occipital region shows a broad mild flattening 
ending in a medium occipital eminence, which gives the region an 
impression of breadth and submedium height. Much the same char- 
acteristic is found also in other Neanderthal skulls. 


The temporal bones, judging from that on the right side, most of 
which is present, were remarkably small. The lines of attachment 
of the temporal muscles and fascia were about as in modern skulls. 
The mastoid was decided!y smaller than it is in modern crania. The 
external auditory meatus is also of very moderate size. The vault 
viewed from above is ovoid in shape. The cranial bones, particularly 
the frontal and the parietals, are rather thick, the occipital being per- 
ceptibly thinner and nearer in this respect to modern skulls. The 

180 159 7 2100s: 
80 1 ae Seana aE 


& : 
rent mame eel mene tinted mennipoeern nana’ 


Fe res eS he ee ee ee 

150 190 50 0 

| a 
| o 

Seka Sree ae ai 2 EA SE ae ie 

Fic. 16.—Profile drawing of the brain cast of the Gibraltar skull. It represents 
the smallest known brain of the extinct Neanderthal race. (After Keith.) 

base, though largely damaged or missing, shows a number of points 
of special interest. 

The broad dental arch is nearly horseshoe-shaped (elliptical with 
broad front). The palate was of medium height, with a mild median 
bilateral torus. The teeth form a regular arch and are close in appo- 
sition, without either crowding or diastemae. The canines, in their 
roots and lower portion of the crown, were very much like and no 
larger than the anterior premolars. All the front teeth are stouter 
linguo-labially than they are in modern skulls. The glenoid fossa is of 


triangular shape, with the apex of the triangle directed forward and 
somewhat inward. It is decidedly smaller, especially in its transverse 
diameter, than it is in modern skulls, and its transverse plane is more 
inclined outward and upward. 

There was evidently no styloid. Between what represents the 
base of the styloid and the retrotympanic ridge passing from the 
spinous process towards the posterior part of the border of the ex- 
ternal meatus and the mastoid, there is a rather broad and marked 
depression, which is not found in modern skulls. The mastoid was 
plainly situated less outwardly than in modern crania. The digastric 
groove is short and broad ; it is in reality a fossa rather than a groove. 
The petrous portions of the temporal bone are on a level with the 
surrounding parts of the face, as in the anthropoids and some of the 
most primitive of human skulls. 

Endocranially, the sku!l shows a number of interesting features. 
There is, throughout, a marked paucity of impressions of brain con- 
volutions, and also of those of the blood vessels. Even the sinuses 
have left but shallow grooves. The brain itself was not particularly 
small for a female skull; and it was already of a rather advanced 
human type. The anterior parts of the frontal bone are rough. The 
roofs of the orbits are somewhat more elevated, especially mesially, 
than in modern skulls, encroaching thus on the frontal lobes. The 
olfactory or mid-frontal fossa is deeper and more spacious than that 
in recent crania, and is of different form. The frontal lobes were 
relatively large but low, especially anteriorly ; the middle or temporal 
fossa was relatively small; and the same is true of the cerebellar 
fossae, which were smaller from side to side as well as sagitally, and 
more shallow, than is usual in modern skulls. The pituitary fossa, 
damaged, was evidently near the average size of the structure in 
modern crania. The petrous bones, especially in their mesial parts, 
are stouter than they are in female skulls of modern times. 

There are other details and dimensions about the specimen which 
are of more or less interest to the anthropologist, but which need not 
be dealt with in this paper. It will suffice to say that both the visual 
and the instrumental examination of the specimen lead to the con- 
clusion that the Gibraltar skull represents a highly valuable relic of 
an early human being and that its principal characteristics justify its 
classification with the Homo neanderthalensis. 




Broca Sollas Sera Keith Hrdlicka 
Vault: cm. cm. cm. cm. cm. 
Length max. 
(glabella-occip.)......... nee 19.0 eens Saas 19133 
(glabella-inion)......... nae 18.8 18.8 
(ophryon-inion)......... serrae 18.1 Bb Meee ene 
Breadth max., estimated...| .... 14.4 sae ofc, a Rear DARE 
Cranial inGex-fse esis oe sen. lclosetoisa:04|) (eae .... |close to 77.0 
Height, basion-vertex 
(estimated) ea aecienes fae VED S702. 2 Hath. 
Basion-bregma.........- Ras eae wee a ||eneard22 
Height-breadth index. ..... deed aise Shag Lda isy || SMa oe a5) 
Mean height index....... nea ae Ege Zuers $ig,- ull CART ES 
Calottal height (glabella- = 
inion line to vertex)..... oy 23 8.2-8.7 mae 
Diam. frontal min......... Saint eee a ee se 2 4||) MeaRiQuO 
Thickness min. of frontal 
bone near bregma....... ee 7 mm. 
AUOPNLYVON sc... 1552: oe 14 mm. aa ee 
Cranial capacity, estimated.| .... 1260 cc. ae 1200 
1250 cc. 
Face height (alveolar 
POINt-MASION)). 7 ns oe ..c. | ‘Mear8.2 near S.2))44.. | means .o 
Interorbital breadth, min...| 2.3 
Orbits: Breadth (mesial 
lancimearnkt) Serre) ak ie at An 4.4 
4.4 43 4.4 aha mre 
fromicachy Olmert im| mere: See seashs 1p close ton4=o 
Les eyee Sete: vata 4.0 
Height.mid2 6c. ses = E. | 3.9 (3.9)4 (3.9)4 4.0 
1. | 3.9 (4.0) (4.1) 3.8 
Depth Tm |e Sea apa. 5.3 
Orbital index (mean)...... ayn eit eee pect 07-5 
Height of aperture........ eaus 3.45 BAO 
Height (probably to base of 
SPINE) ie Maas eee aie ee eat a7 
Height, nasion to lowest 
points on borders of 
notches, mean.......... wate see aes Le 5.85 
Aperture, breadth max.....] .... a3 Bud by tats Beal 

Nasaliim Gene on cam trees te eg cee a ohh 58.1 



Broca Sollas Sera Keith Hrdlicka 
Upper alveolar arch: cm. cm. cm. cm. cm. 
Median length to line of 
rearmost points of 3rd 
AMOlATS EM seeraysenste cee =. Sea Nase Sh pane Beas th 
to posterior limits of arch} .... | near 6.7 yee wr et W Beare 
Breadth max., external....| 7.1 70 Mh ae 70 
AEX caateter ners eeiek sa 95.7 Rate ge ae 05.7 
Thickness of right parietal, 
along a line 1 cm. above 
squamous suture........ Many: Seta Orr ee 6-9 mm. 

1 Taken on the reconstructed skull (original); the reconstruction is so good that there can be 
but little error; though it is possible that the original may have been a trace narrower. 
2 Evidently an error; his figures (p. 322) give 75.8. 
8 These measurements could not have been taken from the standard landmark of dacryon; 
they doubtless are measurements of the contour of the orbits. 
“A a These are reversed and one author had apparently copied the other; the right orbit is the 

Whole Cavity: Greatest length of brain (left hemisphere)...........----- 16.4 
Maximum length, right side, measured.............-..--- 16.2 
Maximum» breadth estimatedinn. a4 .-2)-1s 56 ee eis er = 12.8 
Gerehrarmder telgse tare). csiscas Saris ae ancien cle eee 79.0 
Anterior or frontal fossa (all fossae right side): Length!..... ee 
Eviaddlevor temporal fossa. 2 2.5). So ae ee eye = See 5.0 
Postero-superior or occipital cerebral fossa...........----- 7.6 
Postero-inferior or cerebellar fossa............-.---++++5 5-7 
Mesoce- ibaa ; SUES 
Whites | Whites and Gibbons) 
Anteniontossas Wenethecss si. es... 5.22 5.05 5.20 
Percental relation to max. 
endocranial lengtae ins <6 6 ee. > 29.5 30.4 qoute tid -0 
Percental relation to total length of 
LOSSES 4 AA Ce Orn Aes ieee BO 28.2 29.2 
Middle tiossas Wengthi ts. sso .ace-- oe 5.53 Beez 5.0 
Percental relation to max. 
encdoctanial length)... ...0.2-.-<: O22 33.0 B000) N33 23543 
Percental relation to total length of 
PORSTEUIPR oF OGLS : tells ta ela ees 29.5 29.4 28.2 
Posterior cerebral fossa: Length....... 7.96 7.58 7.60 
Percental relation to max. 
endocrantal length... .:.<u7.-> 46.0 46.8 46.9 | 42.5-48.5 
Percental relation to total length of 
LOSSHE ME ao oe Soe ee wisn hale 42.6 42.4 42.7 
Cerebellar fossa: Length............. 6.26 6.16 57 

1 For methods and comparative data see Hrdli¢ka, A. Measurements of the Cranial Fossae. 
Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., Vol. 32, pp. 177-232, 1907. 



Between 1863 and 1866 Professor G. Busk explored a number of 
caves at and in the vicinity of Gibraltar. In these he collected several 
skulls and a series of bones, all of which, however, belonged to the 
Neolithic age. Busk reported on his work before the Prehistoric 
Congress of Norwich in 1868; and a report on the bones and skulls, 
together with the measurements of the latter, is given by Paul 
Broca (Bull, Soc. Anthrop., Paris, 1869, Vol. 4, pp. 145-158). 

In 1910 and again in 1911, W. L. H. Duckworth, of the Cambridge 
University, visited Gibraltar for the purpose of obtaining, if possible, 
additional information about the old skulls, and of making further 
exploration. The results are published in two reports.’ He found 
that Forbes’ Quarry still existed, though, having been worked at 
intervals since 1848, its boundaries were larger. The quarry, as origi- 
nally noted, is under the north front of the Rock of Gibraltar. The 
rock at this point contained still a remnant of a cave, which was not 
more than about 30 feet above sea level and “ was probably the result 
of marine erosion at a remote epoch; and at a remote epoch also, the 
mouth of this cave must have been closed, until it was reopened by 
the quarrymen.” It was in all probability this cave in which the skull 
was discovered. A partial exploration of the cave and the neighboring 
talus was barren so far as remains of man were concerned. A second 
cave in the rock, explored by Dr. Duckworth, gave remains of the 
Neolithic period. 

In the latter part of 1910, a stone-slide obstructed both the quarry 
and the cave, making the latter accessible only with great difficulty. 
The work of 1911 added but little of importance to that of 1g10. 
But one of the caverns (Sewell’s Cave) yielded, with others, some 
Mousterian, Aurignacian, Solutrean, and even Magdalenian, stone 


In 1917 parts of the Rock of Gibraltar and the neighborhood were 
investigated by Abbé Breuil. During this work the Abbé discovered 
near the “ Devil’s Tower ” a rough rock shelter which gave indications 
of paleolithic man. This site, in 1926, was explored in detail by Miss 
D. A. E. Garrod; and it was here that in June, 1926, Miss Garrod 
found, enclosed in rock, the skull of a child, proceeding evidently 
from the Mousterian period. This skull will be described later. 

* Duckworth, W. L. H., Cave Exploration at Gibraltar in September, 1oro. 
Journ. Roy. Anthrop. Inst., Vol. 41, pp. 350-380, London, 1911; Cave Explora- 
tion at Gibraltar in 1911. Jbid., Vol. 42, pp. 515-528, 1912. 


The Gibraltar skull (1848). (Photograph from Royal College of Surgeons, 
London. ) 


(‘uopuoT ‘suoasing jo asaTjoD [esAoy ay} Wort ydessojoyg) “MorIA apis ‘(gvgr) [[MyAS reyesqity e4L 



The Gibraltar skull (1848), top view. (Photograph from the Royal College ot 
Surgeons, London. ) 



Bourg, M., ano AntHony. L’encéphale de I’homme fossile de la Chapelle-aux- 
Saints, L’Anthrop., Vol. 22, pp. 129-196, 1911. 

. L’homme fossile de la Chapelle-aux-Saints. Paris, 1913. 

Broca, P. Cranes et ossements humains des cavernes de Gibraltar. Bull. Soc. 
Anthrop. Paris, Vol. 4, pp. 145-158, 18609. 

Busxk, G. On the ancient or Quaternary fauna of Gibraltar. Trans. Zool. Soc., 
London, Vol. 10, 1870. 

De Quartreraces, A., AND Hamy, E. T. Crania ethnica, p. 21, figs. 18 and 10, 

ScHWALBE, G. Studien zur Vorgeschichte des Menschen. Z. Morph. und An- 
throp., Sonderh., 1906. 

Sera, G. L. Nuove osservazioni ed induzioni sul cranio di Gibraltar. Arch. per 
l’Antrop. e la Etnol., Firenze, Vol. 39, Fasc., pp. 152-212, 1900. 

. Di alcuni caratteri importanti sinora non rilevati nel cranio di Gibraltar. 
Atti d. Soc. rom. di antrop., Roma, Vol. 15, 14 pp., 1900. 

Sottas, W. J. On the cranial and facial characters of the Neanderthal race. 
Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London, Ser. B, Vol. 199, pp. 281-339, 1907. 

The skull is dealt with also in all the general treatises on Prehistory. 


For the discovery of this interesting specimen, science is indebted 
to Miss Dorothy Garrod, English prehistorian. The specimen was 
found in June, 1926, embedded in hard rock in some Mousterian 
deposits fronting a small cave opposite the ruin of “ Devil’s Tower,” 
in the eastern face of the north front (Spain front) of the Rock of 
Gibraltar, not very far from the Forbes Quarry, in which in 1848 
was discovered the adult Neanderthaloid skull of Gibraltar. The find 
and the specimens recovered were described by Miss Garrod, Pro- 
fessors Buxton and Elliot Smith, and Miss Bate, before the Royal 
Anthropological Institute, November, 1927, and the several reports 
were published in the Journal of the Institute." The details of the 
find are given by Miss Garrod ; the main points are as follows: 

The Mousterian site at Devil’s Tower was discovered in 1917 by the Abbé 
Breuil, then acting as diplomatic courier between Gibraltar and the French Naval 
Bureau at Madrid (1). In the course of a visit to the North Front of the Rock 
he noticed fragments of fossil-bone in the talus of a small cave or rock-shelter 
at the foot of the immense vertical peak of Rock-Gun, immediately opposite a 
ruin known as the Devil’s Tower. M. Breuil was unable to follow up this dis- 
covery at the time, but in 1919 he returned to Gibraltar and with the help of the 

late Colonel Willoughby Verner dug a trial trench a little way down the talus of 
the shelter, unearthing a number of animal bones and four stone implements of 

* Garrod, D. A. E., with L. H. D. Buxton, G. Elliot Smith, and D. M. A. Bate, 
Excavation of a Mousterian Rock-Shelter at Devil’s Tower, Gibraltar. Journ. 
Roy. Anthrop. Inst., Vol. 58, pp. 19-113, 7 pls., 25 figs., 1928. 


definite Mousterian type. My own work on the shelter, undertaken at M. Breuil’s 
suggestion, occupied seven months, between November, 1925, and January, 1927, 
and was carried out by means of a grant from the Percy Sladen Memorial Fund. 

The Devil’s Tower cave is a narrow fissure running obliquely into the Rock 
of Gibraitar at the eastern end of the North Front, 350 m. from Forbes’ Quarry. 
It has a maximum height of 12 m. and a maximum width of 1.20 m., and 4 m. 
from the entrance it narrows to a mere crack. The rocky floor at the cave 
mouth lies 9 m. above sea-level, and 5 m. above the average level. 

The work carried out consisted in emptying the cave down to the rock floor 
and removing the talus or terrace deposits over an area extending from the 

13.79 METRES 



OF en: ox i Z 
eet " Cor 
LIThODOMT Sar Sages SES Pe Re ey ZZ 
hid Qe hee Beans 
Giana cc" ees 


Fic. 17——The Mousterian site at Gibraltar that gave the child’s skull. (After 
Miss Garrod. ) 

1. Fine sand. 2. Calcareous tufa. 3. Fine sand. 4: Brownish-grey travertine 
or tufa’ 5. Fine sand. 6. Pink travertine. 7. Raised beach. W.“ Wash” of sandy 
rubble. A. Rocks blocking the fissure. B. Fallen rock. C. Rampart of rock in 
front of raised beach. + + Portions of human skull. 

rock wall which bounded them on the west to a line 4.50 m. to the east of the 
cave mouth. Seven layers of deposit were revealed in this way, the succession 
from above downwards being as follows: 

. Fine sand, filling the fissure to the roof. 

. Calcareous tufa, I-4 m. 

. Fine sand, 20 cm.-I m. 

. Travertine, 10-80 cm. 

. Fine sand, 40 cm.-1.40 m. 

. Travertine, 50-75 cm. 

7. Raised beach, with its surface at 8.50-9 m. above sea-level. 


Layers I-5 contained archaeological material, the industry from top to bottom 
being Mousterian. 


The total number of implements and flakes recovered was small— 
less than 500, the majority in quartzite, the rest in flint, chert, and 
jasper. There were also two fragments of bone compressors. 

The industry of layers 1 and 2, and the implements found in the “ wash” have 
a well-marked Upper Mousterian character. Specially typical are the utilized 
bones, the curved points of Audi type, the narrow well-made straight points, the 
preponderance of scrapers, and the high proportion of flakes so slender that they 
may fairly be described as blades. The industry of the lower levels is so poor 
as to be in no way typical, but the presence of a graver in layer 4, taken together 
with the general uniformity of technique throughout the site, and the absence” 
of more archaic forms in the “ wash,” suggests that these, too, belong to the 
Upper Mousterian. 

The fauna, too, as determined by Miss Bate, was much the same 
at all leveis. The mammals, found in the various layers (except the 
“seal and the elephant which occurred in the raised beach), included 
the following: 

Talpa europea 
Crocidura russula 
Myotis, cf. myotis 
Nyctinomus teniotis 
Canis lupus 

Ursus arctos 

Meles meles 
Hyaena crocuta 
Felis pardus 

Felis, cf. sylvestris 
Lynx pardellus 
Monachus albiventer 

Eliomys quercinus 
Apodemus sylvaticus 
Arvicola sp. 
Pitymys sp. 
Microtus brecciensis 
Hystrix cristata 
Sus scrofa 

Cervus elaphus 
Bos, cf. primigenius 
Capra pyrenaica 
Equus sp. 

Elephas sp. 

Oryctolagus cuniculus 

There were also the remains of numerous birds, a tortoise, a few 
fish, and many shells of both marine and land molluscs. 

The human skull was found in the travertine of layer 4, under the 
following conditions, according to Miss Garrod: 

Towards the end of May, 1926, I was obliged to put a heavy charge of blast- 
ing gelatine into the rock (B) which blocked the terrace in front of the cave. 
This rock ran obliquely downward from the middle of layer 2 to the base of 
layer 4, and when it was blown up the explosion opened a large number of cracks 
in the surrounding travertine. Into these cracks wedges were inserted, and the 
travertine, which at this point was very hard, was removed in great blocks which 
were afterwards broken up with a hammer. On June 11th a big lump was 
removed slightly to the west of the gap left by rock (B), and 5.50 m. from the 
cave-mouth. On examining the face of the travertine left in place I noticed a 
thin edge of bone in the section, about 10 cm. from the surface of the layer. The 
surrounding deposit was very much cracked, and, after prizing open the cracks 
with a tool, I was eventually able to remove with my hands a chunk of traver- 
tine to the under surface of which adhered the bone of which I had seen the edge. 


This proved to be the frontal of a human skull, the outer surface of which had 
become completely detached from the surrounding deposit, while the inside re- 
mained filled with travertine. Three-quarters of an hour later the removal of 
another large block exposed a broken edge of a human parietal lying about 1 m. 
to the east of the frontal and at the same depth from the surface. The crack in 
the travertine had passed right through the bone, breaking up the edge which 
bore the sagittal suture, but I was able to recover the fragments. The part which 
remained in situ was completely embedded in the matrix, and it was necessary 
to chip away a block large enough to contain the whole bone. 

The deposit surrounding the skull was carefully searched, but without result, 
and at the end of a week I was obliged to close down the dig on account of the 
heat. I returned to Gibraltar early in October, and three weeks later found a 
human lower jaw, right maxilla, and right temporal in layer 4, all lying close 
together in the mouth of the cave, 5.50 m. from the place where the frontal and 
parietal had been found. The jaw and temporal were in the crumbling tufa 
already described as filling the fissure at this level, but the maxilla, although 
only a few centimeters away, was embedded in a bank of hard travertine which 
lined the eastern wall. 

Although layer 4 was afterwards searched over its whole extent, no other 
human bones were found. 

It seems clear from the position of the bones that the skull originally lay 
in the mouth of the cave, but as it belonged to a very young individual it fell 
apart along the sutures, and the frontal and left parietal, together with those 
parts which are missing, were washed forward on to the terrace by the waters 
of the spring which converted the original sandy layer into travertine. The © 
missing parts were probably carried further forward than the others, and so 
rolled down the slope and were lost. 

It is probable that the skull was already separated from the body when it lay 
in the cave, for if the whole skeleton had been present some, at least, of the bones 
must have been found. On the other hand, the fact that the lower jaw lay 
quite close to the temporal and maxilla suggests either that decomposition was 
not complete at the time of deposition or that the jaw was fastened to the skull 
by a thong or string. In either case it seems impossible to avoid the conclusion 
that the skull was intentionally preserved, either as a trophy or in fulfilment of 
a pious rite. 


The human skull is described most carefully and with much detail 
by Professor Buxton. The main results of his study are: 

The Devil’s Tower bones are the remains of a single individual skull belong- 
ing to a child of five years old, probably of the male sex. ... . The form of 
the face and jaws is essentially that which we associate with Neanderthal man. 
Many of these features can be shown, however, to owe their characteristic ap- 
pearance partly to the great size of the teeth and partly to functional activities, 
but the general massiveness, not only of the jaws but also of such features as the 
tympanic plate, is remarkable. 

. ... the contours of the forehead are, when seen from the side, almost ex- 
actly similar to contours of the La Quina child, but the size of the specimen is 


very unusual..... The dimensions and form of the brain-case, especially the 
expansion of the frontal area, are beyond the range of Neanderthal man, as 
hitherto discovered, if we make the same allowance for age that we should do 
in the case of a modern child. These conditions suggest a brain-case built more 
after the fashion of modern than of Neanderthal man. .... The teeth of our 
specimen closely resemble in size and shape those usually associated with Nean- 
derthal man. The face and jaws must therefore necessarily be close to the typi- 
cal Neanderthal form. The brain-case is, however, different from the type form, 
because the underlying structure, the brain, was larger. 


(By Buxton) 


Nasion to lambda-.........- 16.7 Measurements of thickness of calva- 

Glabellastomlambdass. 16.9 rium: 

Ophryon to lambda......... 16.4 (1) Along fractured edge of left 

Nasion-bregma arc ........ 11.6 parietal : 

Nasion-bregma chord ...... 10.2 mm. 

Bregma-lambda arc ........ II.0 (a) At coronal suture..... 4.4 

Bregma-lambda chord ..... 10.1 (b) At lambdoid suture... 4.0 

Frontal width, min......... 10.4 (?) (c) 5 mm. post. to coronal 

Brontal width, max. ...s...: 12.5 suture (max. thick- 

Greatest breadth .......... 15.0(?) TESS) Rene ee ae ce 4.9 

Interfronto-malar width .... 9.25 (2) Elsewhere on parietal: 

Intraorbital width ......... 2.45 (a) Opposite parietal emi- 

Bicondylar width .:........; 10.2 (?) NENCESS ener 4.9 

Condylo-symphyseal length.. 8.1 (?) (b) In center of parieto- 

Symphyseal height ....... 2.1 squamous suture .... 5.1 

Orbital width (from fronto- (3) Thickness of frontal bone at 
malar to fronto-nasal su- Breeiiay cca eee: 5.0 
ture) : 

Felli mute co a. cua 46.8 3.4 
ehtaeran co nectcessreect 4 3.5 


The brain of the Gibraltar child, as shown by the endocranial cast, 
has been studied by Elliot Smith. His observations are of much 
interest. In all the other endocranial casts of Neanderthal man, 
he says, 

there is an obvious lack of fullness in the prefrontal, and less distinctly, superior 
parietal, areas of the brain. But in the endocranial cast of the skull from Devil's 
Tower these regions are fuller, and seem to present a marked contrast to the 
meagreness that strikes the eye in the case of all the other Neanderthaloid casts, 
in particular those of the Galilee and La Quina skulls. In fact the general con- 
tour of the cast suggests the possibility that the unusual fullness may be due to 
hydrocephalus; but the distinctness of the ridges corresponding to the conyolu- 
tions and the depth of the intervening sulci render the pathological explanation 


The point of chief interest about this brain is, 

the high development of the prefrontal area. Although the prefrontal territory 
in the cast of the La Chapelle-aux-Saints skull appears to be both longer and 
higher than that of the Devil’s Tower specimen, the latter differs from the 
former (and, in fact, from all the other Neanderthaloid specimens) in not exhib- 
iting any depression (or obvious appearance of ill-development) in contrast to 
the precentral area of the cast. In other words, the front part of the brain of 
the Devil’s Tower specimen presents at first sight a curiously modern appear- 
ance that sharply contrasts with the configuration of the other Neanderthal 
casts—and, in particular, with such examples as those obtained from the Galilee 
and La Quina skulls, in which the prefrontal area is so obviously diminutive and 
shrunken us. 

The brain of the infant from the Devil’s Tower exhibits another feature of 
some interest. There is an exceptionally large gap between the inferior tem- 
poral convolution and the cerebellum on the right side (the only side from which 
the temporal bone was recovered). Moreover, the under-surface of the inferior 
temporal convolution is deeply hollowed and its margin bevelled. These facts 
suggest an exceptionally poor development of the temporal region comparable 
to the conditions revealed by the Piltdown and Rhodesian skulls. 

Summing up the general conclusions to be drawn from the study of the endo- 
cranial cast, we may conclude that the child whose remains were found at the 
Devil’s Tower was a normal representative of the Neanderthal species, with an 
exceptionally high development of the prefrontal region of the brain and a tem- 
poral area that was rather below the average size. 


The writer was so fortunate as to see the originals at their first 
presentation before the Royal Anthropological Institute, and again at 
Oxford ; besides which he was favored through the courtesy of Pro- 
fessor Arthur Thomson with a set of good casts of the specimens. 

The skull is represented by the whole frontal and the left parietal, 
a detached right temporal, most of the right maxilla, and the lower 
jaw. The skull impresses the observer by its relatively large size 
and large breadth, combined with relative lowness. The lower part 
of the frontal has a Neanderthaloid look. The interorbital process 
is very stout, much stouter than in any modern child of similar pro- 
portions ; the glabellar region is broad, convex and considerably for- 
ward of what it is in present day skulls; and there is already a fairly 
distinct though still mild complete supraorbital torus with a shallow 
depression above it. The forehead is broad, of very uniform convexity 
from side to side, and as full and well arched as in modern skulls. 
The fronto-temporal fossa is more full than average at this stage of 
life in recent crania. There is no sagittal ridge, and the transverse 
arc is broadly oval. 


The parietal shows a moderate and diffuse yet appreciable emi- 
nence midway on the bone from above downwards and but slightly 
posterior to the middle antero-posteriorly, and there was evidently 
no marked flattening of the parietals from the inion to obelion; all 
of which are recent rather than Neanderthaloid conditions. 

The bones of the vault, including the separate temporal, are per- 
ceptibly stouter than in modern European skulls of similar age. The 
temporal bone, somewhat damaged, shows a very small mastoid; a 
cylindrical—not oval as at present—meatus; a stouter base of the 
zygoma than in modern skulls; a shallow, broad (transversely) glen- 
oid fossa, slanting much upward and outward, and more strongly 
protected by bony walls along its whole posterior extent than is usual 
at present ; a thick tympanic bone (though not more so than in some 
present children’s skulls) ; and a bulky petrosa with a large internal 
meatus situated higher than is now usual. The upper borders of the 
orbits, especially on the left, are still fairly sharp, and in shape and 
otherwise much as at present, although larger and with the bones 
evidently thicker. 

The nasion depression is in the form of a broad moderate con- 
cavity from above downwards. The nose was broader than in modern 
children. The sub-orbital region is full and distinctly convex, without 
any trace of the usual modern depression (canine fossa). The bones 
are relatively stout. The upper alveolar process is'rather stout, and 
the teeth—the two right milk molars—are larger than in the modern 
child and relatively narrow. The median upper incisor, still com- 
pletely enclosed but visible through damage to the anterior wall of 
its socket, is enormous, the crown measuring 11.5 mm, in maximum 
breadth by near 14 mm. in height. The still somewhat shallow palate 
is broad in front and is nearly U-shaped. 

The lower jaw is about as stout in body as the stoutest jaws of that 
age today ; in alveolar process, it is decidedly stouter than any modern 
mandibles. Relative to the size of the skull it appears small, but 
compares well in size with modern jaws of similar dental age (length, 
posterior border of ramus to symphysis, along the middle, close to 7.8, 
bigonial breadth near 7.4 cm.).’ The symphyseal region is broad, but 
slightly convex from side to side, with already a fairly distinct dull 
angle at the canines, and slightly receding from the vertical. It is 
a typical Neanderthaloid jaw. There is but a faint suggestion of chin 

The height at symphysis and along the body is moderate (at sym- 
physis, 2.1; at M1, 1.85 cm.), compared with that of various modern 

1 All the measurements here given were taken on the cast of the specimen. 


mandibles of similar age. The thickness of the body (at symphysis, 
1.3; at Mr, 1.4 cm.), is considerable, but not in excess of Indian, 
Eskimo, and other similar mandibles of the present time. 

Lingually, there is visible anteriorly a rather marked alveolar plane 
or upper simian shelf, which is nevertheless approached in degree 
in some modern child mandibles, and a distinct, complete, fairly sharp 
median ridge (“ transverse torus ” of Holl) bounds the plane beneath 
and extends on each side backward, where it blends imperceptibly 
with the mylohyoid ridge. There are no depressions as yet above this 
ridge, with undifferentiated conditions below. The inferior border, 
evenly arched, presents already a fairly marked, broad, Neanderthal- 
oid digastric flattening, but posterior to the milk molars the border is 
as in stouter modern jaws. 

The ramus is stouter than in modern mandibles, more slanting 
(mandibular angle 125°), fairly though not excessively broad 
(breadth min. 2.8), and somewhat low (height from middle of line 
connecting the condyle and the coronoid to middle of lower border, 
3.8 cm.). The notch is shallow. The coronoid process is stout but 
short; the condyle is still of moderate thickness and narrow (diam. 
antero-post., 7; transverse, 1.4 cm.). The outer surface of the ramus 
is rather full and smooth, the inner as in strong jaws of similar age 
today. The angle is as in modern bones. 


In the district of Spy, province of Namur, Belgium, on a steep, 
wooded mountain side, the base of which is skirted by the small 
stream of Orneau, there is a great protruding rock, and in its base a 
moderate sized cave now known as the cave of Spy. The rock, due to 
its form, is known locally as the ‘‘ Bec (or Béche) aux-Roches.”” The 
cave, which is about 60 feet above the level of the stream,. opens 
toward the south, a feature which together with the fair inside di- 
mensions and good outlook of the cave made it a favorable site for 
early human habitation. Traces of such habitation were found long 
before the eighties of the last century, and as interest in human pre- 
history grew, the accumulations within were dug over more or less 
thoroughly a number of times, notably by M. Rucquoy,’ yielding 
remains of upper Quaternary fauna, late paleolithic worked stones, 
and worked bones, some of which showed graved lines. On the 

? Rucquoy, M., Notes sur les fouilles faites en aout 1879 dans la caverne de la 
Béche-aux-Roches, prés de Spy. Bull. Soc. Anthrop., Vol. 5, pp. 318-328, 2 pls., 
Brux., 1886-7. 

(‘gz61 “0g ‘doryjuy “AoY 

‘uaNOf ‘possey Joyyy) ‘ouNsVAvsZ pue vyN} Jo ssokL] JUdIIYIP Ae ” 

dy} JO Sa8pa ay} UO aie SJay}O 94} : YBaq pastel oy} JsuIvoe eo - See I “90G ‘doiyjyuy “AoY “UNO, “poirery 
a IHWYV SsOId YyoRTG B YM paxse JAB Ik ; 

SUIPUR}S SI SYM Ul ULL OY], *padowas usaq pry afqqn4 Apues Bee eee Oe ee ancl ig eae tea semO Ty ASG ate 
t oF] L SuiMoys ‘eI ‘Yoeaq Us9}S¥a 9Y} WOT} UNS-YIOI JO MATA “I 

JO ,,YSeM,, IY} J9}jJe ps JAMOL, SJIAVqd 94} JO MIA z 

4 ‘ 



The Gibraltar child’s skull. (After Garrod and Buxton, 1928.) 


The endocranial cast of the neanderthaloid child’s skull of Gibraltar 
(After Elliot Smith, 1928.) 


plateau above the hillside were found also a large number of worked 
flints, partly like those of the cave, partly more recent to neolithic. 

In 1885 a more systematic and extensive exploration of the cave 
was begun by Marcel de Puydt, Member of the Archeological Institute 
of Liége, and Maximin Lohest, at that time Assistant in Geology at 
the University of Liége. These explorers found the cave much worked 
over, but a large, high terrace in front of the cave had evidently not 
as yet been touched, and upon this terrace they concentrated their 
attention. A trench sunk in the terrace to a depth of four feet re- 
vealed a thick layer of brown earth with numerous fragments and 
blocks of limestone fallen from the rocks above, beneath which the 
explorers found an ossiferous layer 30 to 40 cm. (12 to 16 ins.) in 
thickness, containing also numerous flint implements. From the de- 
posits above this layer, apparently, the explorers recovered some 
worked flints and bones, some débris of pottery, and a fragment of 
a human skull, which made it appear that the lower ossiferous layer 
was not the sole layer here of human habitation.’ 

The total number of worked flints recovered during the 1885 exca- 
vations reached several thousand.’ In addition there were recovered 
numerous points and awls of bone, three polished fragments of ivory 
covered with graved lines, one oval ivory bead, a flat bone with several 
series of parallel or crossed lines, two other decorated bones, and a 
perforated tooth of a young hyena, evidently used as a pendant. The 
stone implements, of relatively high-class workmanship, ranged them- 
selves with the Mousterian. 

The explorations by Messrs. De Puydt and Lohest were resumed 
in 1886, and in June of that year the excavators discovered in the 
terrace the remains of two remarkable human skeletons, besides large 
quantities of bones of Quaternary animals and flints and other in- 
dustrial objects, a large proportion of which showed Mousterian 
affinities. The discovery was brought to the attention of Professor 
J. Fraipont of the Liége University; and on August 16, 1886, De 
Puydt and Lohest announced the important find to the Congres arche- 

*De Puydt, Marcel, et Lohest, Max. Exploration de la grotte de Spy. Ann. 
Soc. géol. Belg. Liége, Vol. 13, pp. 34-30, 1886; also, L’homme contemporain 
du mammouth a Spy, province de Namur (Belgique), with 10 pls. Bruxelles, 

2“ Des silex et ossements, quelques débris de poterie et un fragment de crane 
humain, trouvés dans les terres lors du creusement, font, il est vrai, supposer 
qu'il pourrait y avoir d’autres niveaux ossiféres plus ou moins caractérisés ” 
(p. 35). 



ologique of Namur.’ Later the same year Fraipont and Lohest pub- 
lished an account of the discovery, with the first description of the 
skeletal human remains, in the Bulletins of the Royal Academy of 

According to this last-mentioned account, the terrace extended for 
about 11 meters (36 feet) in front of the cave. The human bones were 
found at a depth of 13 feet from the surface, which here rose con- 
siderably higher than the threshold of the cave. The accumulations 
that formed the terrace included rocks, fallen calcareous blocks and 
débris, earth, many archeological traces of man’s presence, and nu- 
merous remains of fossil animals. They could be separated into 
several strata, none of which showed any perceptible disturbance. 

Skeleton No. 2 lay 6 m. (nearly 20 ft.) to the south of the entrance 
of the cave; skeleton No. I was 2.50 m. (8.2 ft.) further in the same 
direction. Skeleton No. 1 lay transversely to the axis of the cave, 

Fic. 18.—The terrace in front of the Spy Cave. (After Fraipont and Lohest.) 

with head to the east and feet to the west. It lay on the side with 
one hand applied to the lower jaw. The bones were enclosed in an 
undisturbed layer of argilaceous tufa, from which they could be 
liberated only with much difficulty and damage. 

More in detail, a section of the deposits showed them to consist of : 

A. Brown earth and fallen rocks ; thickness approximately 2.90 m. 
(over 9 ft.). No paleontological or human remains. 

B. Yellow argilaceous tufa, enclosing limestone blocks, 0.80 m. 
(23 ft.) in thickness. This layer could be broken only with difficulty 
by the pick. It gave some bones of the mammoth and deer, and also 
some worked flints. 

C. A stratum 15 cm. (6 ins.) thick, strongly colored red, and 
containing many flint imp!ements, rejects of stone industry, angular 

*De Puydt, M., and Lohest, M., L’homme contemporain du Mammouth a Spy. 
C. R. Congr. de Namur, 1886. Also in a separate pamphlet. 

*Fraipont, J., and Lohest, M., La race humaine de Neanderthal ou de Can- 
stadt en Belgique. Bull. Acad. Roy. Belgique, Vol. 12, pp. 741-784, 1886. 


fragments of limestone, bits of charcoal, and débris of mammoth 
tusks. This layer formed a hard crust, resistant to the hammer, 
and covered the human skeletons. 

The animal remains found in the hard layer, C, that overlaid the 
two human skeletons were: 

Rhinoceros tichorinus Elephas primigenius 
Equus caballus Lepus sp. 

Sus scrofa Ursus spelaeus 

Cervus elaphus Meles taxus 

Cervus canadensis? Mustela foina 

Cervus megaceros Cans vulpes 

Cervus tarandus Canis lupus? (familiaris ?) 
Ovis aries? Hyaena spelaea 

Bos primigenius Felis spelaea 

Bos priscus Felis catus 

D. Yellow calcareous clay and rubbish (comp. p. 692 Fraipont and 
Lohest report), passing to a tufa of the same nature as that in layer 
B. Thickness 15 cm. (6 ins.) uneven; at base a streak of charcoal. 

E. The human skeletons and worked flints. 

F. Brown clay, in places black, enclosing angular pebbles of lime- 
stone, numerous animal bones and worked flints. 

The animal remains encountered at the level of the skeletons or 
lower than these, comprised the following: 

Rhinoceros tichorinus (abundant ) Elephas primigenius (common ) 
Equus caballus (very abundant ) Ursus spelaeus (rare) 

Cervus claphus (rare) Meles taxus (rare) 

Cervus tarandus (very rare) Hyaena spelaea (abundant ) 

Bos primigenius (fairly abundant ) 

Aside from the surface material, three distinct fossil bearing layers 
were therefore distinguishable, namely : 

B. This contained bones of the mammoth and deer; also some 
Mousterian-like flint implements of refined and rather peculiar type. 

C. This stratum, with the underlying few inches of earth, covered 
the human skeletons. Contents: Bones of many Quaternary animals ; 
abundance of flint blades, Mousterian points, and other flint imple- 
ments, in general of less refined make than those of layer B; also 
implements of bone and ivory. Among the bones were needles, awls, 
beads, and pendants, and a number of the bones were decorated with 
linear designs. Some of the bone pendants had evidently once been 
colored red. 

D. to F. The stratum of the two human skeletons. Gave also some 
bones of Quaternary animals, and some stone implements of Mous- 
terian type but inferior in workmanship to those from the layers 
above. The human remains, the authors thought, were not burials 


but accidental inclusions. And as the middle hardened stratum was 
found undisturbed, the skeletons could not have been more recent 
than this stratum. 

In view of the importance of the original report concerning layer 
C, the relevant parts are given here in the original :* 

Deuxiéme niveau ossifere. Le niveau immédiatement supérieur a celui des 
squelettes a procuré en abondance des lames, des pointes moustiériennes en silex 
et en phtanite et en outre, un instrument tres commun, tres épais ayant la forme 
d’un losange, constituant un type intermédiaire entre le grattoir et la pointe 

Les lames, tant en silex qu’en phtanite, sont relativement courtes et larges. 
Des poincons, percoirs, burins et aiguilles en silex apparaissent a ce niveau. 
L’abondance des instruments en os et en ivoire y est caractéristique. La couche 
de déchets provenant de l’ivoire taillé atteignait par place 15 centimetres d’épais- 
seur. Parmi les divers instruments d’os et d’ivoire on distingue des batons ronds 
ou ovales, des poincons, des percoirs, des aiguilles, des perles et des pendeloques. 
Quelques os creux sont ornés de dessins linéaires, et certaines pendeloques, d’une 
forme originale, ont probablement été teintes en rouge par de loligiste, répandu 
du reste a profusion dans tout le niveau. Quelques fragments de poterie se joig- 
nent [? see first account, also last paragraph of these quotations] a la trouvaille, 
mais ni harpon, ni baton de commandement n’ont été recueillis; enfin sur les 
différents objets en ivoire ou en os on n’a observé aucune tentative de reproduc- 
tion de figures d’animaux au moyen de la gravure. 

Certaines roches utilisées pour la confection des instruments situés a ce niveau 
ne se rencontrent pas en Belgique; telles sont l’opale xyloide et l’agate..... 

L’inspection de la coupe p. 663 indique clairement que l’on ne peut considérer 
les squelettes de Spy comme étant d’age plus récent que celui du dépot des couches 
C et F. 

La zone C constituée par une bréche dure, colorée en rouge, recouvrait les 
squelettes [elsewhere mentions a few inches of earth—see next page], et si cette 
bréche etit été percée a une époque postérieure a sa formation, on s’en serait 
immeédiatement apercu lors des fouilles. Nous avons au contraire constaté qu’elle 
était intacte. 

On pourrait cependant prétendre que les hommes qui ont laissé de nombreuses 
traces de leur existence dans la zone C, aient, lors de leur prise en possession de 
la grotte, enterré deux des leurs dans celle-ci, et continué ensuite de l’habiter en 
accumulant au-dessus de ces cadavres leurs débris de cuisine et les rebuts de 
leur industrie. S’il en était ainsi, les hommes de Spy seraient encore contem- 
porains du mammouth, de l’ours des cavernes et du rhinocéros, mais auraient eu 
une civilisation relativement avancée, puisqu’ils auraient enterré leurs morts, 
connu la taille de l’os et de Vivoire, l’usage de poterie, des ornements et de la 

A further remark as to the pottery is found on p. 679: 

Les morceaux de poterie n’ont pas été recueillis 4 Spy par les explorateurs, 
mais ils ont tout lieu de les croire authentiques et de ne pas douter qu’ils pro- 
viennent bien du second niveau. 

*From Fraipont and Lohest, La race humaine de Neanderthal ou de Can- 
stadt en Belgique, pp. 587-757, 1887. 


As to the age of the Spy skeletons, Fraipont and Lohest tell us 
that they regard them as belonging to the time of the third or lowest 
layer of the terrace. The second or middle fossil-bearing layer (C) 
belonged to a different industry which so far (p. 692), ‘has no 
equivalent either in or outside of Belgium. It belongs, through its 
numerous worked bones and ivory, to Mortillet’s Magdalenian, and 
through its flints to the Mousterian.” Between the skeletons and 
layer C, however, there was but little accumulation—from a thin 
covering over one of the skulls to 15 cm. (6 ins.) in thickness, mainly 
rubbish (‘‘eboulis ”). This would seem to indicate no great interval 
between the death of the Spy men and the coming of the inhabitants 
of the middle layer (C), with an industry that differed so much from, 
yet also retained some resemblances to, that of their predecessors ; but 
here much is uncertain. 

From 1906 to 1909, further explorations in the cave of Spy and 
its terrace were carried on under the auspices of the Musée du 
Cinquantenaire in Brussels by Messrs. Baron de Loé, A. Rutot, 
and E. Rahir. The partial results of these explorations were published 
in 1911.’ In 1912 the archeological remains from the cave and terrace 
of Spy were studied by Abbé Breuil and R. R. Schmidt. The results 
are published by Abbé Breuil in the Revue anthropologique of 1912," 
and by Schmidt in his large and meritorious work on prehistoric 
archeology. Abbé Breuil reached the following conclusions: 

The terrace of Spy presented the following layers from below upwards: 

1. An old Mousterian layer, with numerous crudely chipped flakes, together 
with “ coups-de-poing.” 

2. Layer of Upper Mousterian with typical, very well worked flints, and with 
human burials; difficult of separation from superimposed accumulations. 

3. Typical Aurignacian, and of its middle phase. 

4. Final Aurignacian with all transition to the Solutrean, and possibly a little 
of the latter. 

M. Breuil believes that the Mousterian types found in the Aurigna- 
cian deposits represent introductions by human or animal agencies, 
rather than true survivals. 



In their memoir of 1887° on the subject, J. Fraipont and Lohest 
give a detailed description, with the principal measurements, of the 

1 Baron de Loé et E. Rahir. Nouvelles fouilles 4 Spy. Bull. Soc. d’Anthrop. 
de Bruxelles, 1911. 

? Breuil, Abbé H., Remarques sur les divers niveaux archéologiques du gise- 
ment de Spy (Belgique). Rev. anthropologique, 1912, Vol. 22, pp. 120-120. 

* Arch. de Biol. (Gand), Vol. 7, 1887. 


Spy remains; and the main part of these are repeated by Fraipont in 
1891 * (and also more or less on other occasions ; see bibliography ). 
In 1888, Fraipont published an interesting additional study on the 
tibia, in which he shows particularly the considerable inclination back- 
ward of the head of the bone. In 1912 and again in 1913, Charles 
Fraipont, son of Julien, published valuable studies on the astragalus 
of the men of Spy, with many comparisons.”* Finally, in 1927, Mlle. 
Leclercq published a valuable memoir on the curvature of the femur 
in the Spy and other early, as well as later, femora.’ Less directly, 
the Spy remains are dealt with, as has already been mentioned, by 
all the students of early human remains (see final bibliography ). 


The principal observations and measurements on the two skeletons 
by J. Fraipont, as published in his joint memoir with Lohest,’ are 
arranged in the following tables. They are remarkable for their faith- 
fulness, though taken by one who was not a professional anatomist 
or a trained anthropologist. Unfortunately, as will be seen later, 
there has been a confusion of the bones of the two skeletons. 


Considering the animal and archeological remains associated with 
the human skeletons, together with the absence of disturbance in the 
superimposed more recent layers, Lohest believed himself justified 
in referring the Spy remains to the Mousterian period; and the de- 
ductions of Fraipont, based on the study of the skeletal remains 
themselves, were that they belonged to Neanderthal man. Since then 
the Spy remains have received more or less careful consideration by 
every student of early man, and the above classification was found 
to need no radical revision. 

What remained of the Spy skeletons was preserved, before the 
German invasion of 1914, in the collections of the University of 
Liége, where, thanks to the courtesy of Messrs. M. Lohest, Charles 

*Les Hommes de Spy, C. R. Cong. Intern. Anthrop. et Archéol. Préhist., 
28 pp., Paris, 1801. 

* Rey. d’Anthrop., 16 pp., Paris, 1888. 

* Bull. Soc. Anthrop. Bruxelles, Vol. 31, 50 pp. 1912; Dis. inaug., Univ. Liége, 
Bruxelles, 66 pp., 1913. 

* Trav. Lab. Paléon. et Anthrop, Univ. Liége, Vol. 1, 63 pp., 1927. 

° Op. cit. See also his ‘‘ Essai de reconstitution des rapports de la face avec le 
crane chez l’homme fossile de Spy.” C. R. Assoc. Anat. Liége, pp. 11-13, 1903. 







Outlines from above 
and side 
Frontal bone........ 

Supraorbital arches... 

Slabellas. tere ves: 
Depression above 
supraorbital arches 
Temporal fossae..... - 
Parietalsen = oes 

Temporal lines....... 
Temporal bones...... 

PA ROMAG Ts oe esters mast 

Cecipitalosss:42 5.455 

External occipital 
Internal occipital 
protuberance and 
grooves of sinuses. 
Anterior lobes... .. 
Middle lobes 
Posterior cerebral 
Cerebellar fossae..... 

Wpper jaw... 0... 

Spy No. 1 

Spy No. 2 

Much like those of the 
Neanderthal skull 
Shortest and lowest known 

Poorly developed in length 
as well as breadth 

As in Neanderthal, but 
slightly less thick 

Slightly depressed. .......-. 
Weny aiarked: tis. js <x 

Anterior part much depressed 
Relatively better developed 
than the frontal 

Flattened in posterior half. . . 

Not near sagittal suture..... 
Low squama, low arched. ... 
Robust petrous parts....... 
Very strong, differ in form 
from modern 

Strongly protruding, just as 
as in Neanderthal 

Inferiorly squama very slop- 
ing and flattened 

Indications of transverse 
occipital crest 
Deosessionl.el: eee aoa 

Lower and more forward 
than in modern skulls 

Poorly developed..........: 

Well developed, as in modern 

Less deep and extending less 
posteriorly than in modern 

Stout and high alveolar 

Low nasal process 

Strong, lower border, stout 

Somewhat broader and 
more vaulted 

Less low and_ sloping; 
surpasses the mean Nean- 
derthal form and size 
Somewhat better 

Approach that of 

No depression 
Less marked 

Relatively better de- 
veloped than the frontal 
Flattened in posterior 

Not near sagittal suture 
Low squama, low arched 
Robust petrous parts 

Less so 

Inferiorly squama very 
sloping and flattened 
Indications of transverse 
occipital crest 


Lower and more forward 
than in modern skulls 

Somewhat better 

Well developed, as in 
modern dolichocephals 
Less deep and extending 
less posteriorly than in 
modern skulls 

Even stouter than No. | 



VOL. 83 



Spy No. 1 

Lower jaw: 


AMIBIAG IAA Acs eee ea 

Calcaneusmee eee eee 

Fibula, astragalus, 
patella and other 

SEX re coeds leet aes 

Spy No. 2 

Very robust, very high...... 

No chin 

A surface, especially anter- 

iorly, not a border 

As in modern inferior groups, 

incisors small, canines mod- 


Molarss Mai 5icuspsssee- anes 
Mia rAnCuSpS:eeecier 
MiaWagcuspssseee eee 

Nothing peculiar 

Strone shorter ene eee 
Slender: fete eae 
Markedicurvatures.+. 9000 

Voluminous extremities 
(lower condyles enormous), 
shaft almost cylindrical, for- 
ward curvature accentuated, 
linea aspera nearly absent, 
lower articular surfaces ex- 
tend less forward and more 
backward than in modern 

Short, stout. 

Shaft less prismatic than in 
modern bones, borders dull. 
Extremities, especially the 
lower, relatively voluminous. 
Head so inclined backwards 
that articular facets face up- 
ward and backward. 

(Judges that limbs were not 
held straight, but somewhat 
bent forward at the middle) 
Short obDlUsthes a see eee 
Prominence of heel short... . 
Nothing particular.......... 

Female (identified as male by 
Hamy, Schaaffhausen, 
Topinard, Virchow) 

Feels justified in concluding 
that they belong to the same 
race—the Neanderthal 

Even stouter 

As in modern inferior 
groups, incisors small, 
canines moderate 
Molars: M1, 5 cusps 
M2, 4 cusps 
M3, 4 cusps 

Nothing peculiar 
Stronger than in 1 

Marked curvature 
Even stronger 

The same; resembles 
strikingly the Neander- 
thal femur 

Short, robust 
Prominence of heel short 
Nothing particular 

Male (very plainly) 

1 Les Hommes de Spy. C. R. Cong. intern. Anthrop. et Archeol. Prehist., 28 pp, Paris, 1891. 


Fraipont, and J. Sérvais, the writer was enabled to examine the 
originals for the first time in 1912. During the invasion, the remains, 
the property of M. Lohest, were secreted by him in his home at the 
bottom of an old chest, and, though searched for, remained safe. Here, 



Spy No. 1 Spy No. 2 
Vault: cm. cm. 
MEHTA Kn sao) oS a hak ae Uae ecc ohn esse 64 20.0 19.8 
ReAGE MENA Keer 6 Vee amet Va. Sanh ose a ie sees 14.0 15.0 
Wranidannerss see sec he cee oe es me mile eas oe 70.0 74.8 
WranialCincumilerenCe.c2. 4-H arn dbo sek ace osha 58.0 54.0 
Wianan irontal mG. n5 08 ee to cid oct be oe ae cee 10.4 10.6 
Bier ROME a Ma pee calc ee caer he ese cond < acc ais IT. 4 Lr: 7 
Diam. external biorbital (max. breadth supraurb. 
ALN) pee IST. nee Seis eee. 12h 2 12.0 
Closest approach of upper temporal line to 
SAPIELAlPSURNRG 282/04 Soak afc d Oe ee as blac Ors, 6.5 
1. 6.0 
Height of supraorb. arch, mean..:.........:...: 1.6 Te5 
mnvecnesssof skullibones. ..0.. gs bs yen a eee up to 0.9 up to 0.9 
Upper jaw, height, alveolar point—nasal spine. . 2.8 
Lower Jaw: 
ICI at symp My Sis... 865) bs keel ea ee 3.8 
NISL UO oeeWee eee PHETS Beets RY SSI AS BN ck BAe Bee 
Peaae NM NCo Re yess ecg Pak ois, 6 Sabet A ex gaiene 223 
Miicknessat SyMpMySis. 4. ..o6.60 65 ons 6 wn meee eS 
Jae! Vale 8s OE a a a ae a 1.4 
asec NP Sf oa LB SRD, flrs | 32.0 
At middle: 
CinciMMIClENEe | bas os os 6 << «een Toba ane 9.0 
WiaiipaMECEO=POStos ion GC 35+ 6 bane eee shee 
WOSaamestiANSVCESE so. wos Sica BA ewe eee Be 2.4 

1 Fraipont, J., Les Hommes de Spy. C. R. Cong. Intern. Anthrop. et Archeol. Préhist., 
28 pp., Paris, 1891. 

in the presence of the late owner, the writer studied the remains the 
second time in 1923, and finally, in 1927, thanks to the courtesy of 
the sons of Lohest, he was enabled to examine the originals, still in 
the Lohest home, for the third time. In 1923, through the aid of 
Professor A. Rutot and his assistant, the writer also visited the cave. 


The skeletons are generally known as No. 1 and No. 2. To No. 1 

Fraipont and Lohest attributed: 

A vault of a skull; 

Two portions of the upper jaw, with the three right molars, the two right pre- 
molars, the left canine and left lateral incisors; 

A nearly complete lower jaw, with all (16) of its teeth; 

The left clavicle; 

Right humerus, which has lost its upper epiphysis, and the shaft of the left 
humerus ; 

Left radius, without lower epiphysis; 

The proximal extremities of the two ulnae; 

The nearly entire right femur; 

Complete left tibia; and, 

The right calcaneum. 

The parts attributed by the two authors to the second subject are: 

The vault of a skull; 

Two portions of the upper jaw with twelve teeth; 

Two fragments of the lower jaw with the molar teeth; 

Loose teeth belonging to the lower jaw; 

Fragments of the scapulae of two humeri without upper extremities ; 
The shaft of the right radius; 

The proximal two-thirds of the left femur ; 

The left calcaneum; and 

The left astragalus. 

Besides the above, there are 7 vertebrae, a right patella, 24 frag- 
ments of ribs, and 11 bones of hands and feet, with some pieces, about 
which it seemed impossible to say to which skeleton they belonged. 

A repeated critical examination of the specimens leaves a serious 
doubt as to the accuracy of the above distribution. No photographs 
or sketches were made on the spot; the bones were not marked, 
and have evidently become mixed up, their distribution being de- 
cided upon later. The specimens indicate very strongly different 
relations. The right femur, the tibia, and the two stronger ulnae do 
not harmonize with the relatively weak arm bones and clavicle of 
No. 1. They harmonize perfectly, on the other hand, with the bones 
of the male skeleton No. 2 and must, the writer feels, be attributed to 
this skeleton. The true identification of the parts appears to be as 
given on page 189. 

This identification removes many difficulties, makes the material 
much more intelligible, and the deductions on it of more value. Strong 
evidence for the correctness of this reclassification is offered by both 
the femur and the tibia that were attributed to skeleton No. 1. Skull 
No. I, as is shown by its sutures and by the teeth, belongs to a fully 


adult individual of somewhat advancing years. Skull No. 2 indicates 
a younger person. Now both the femur and the tibia attributed to 
No. 1 show still, in proper light, traces of the union of the knee 
epiphyses. This is incompatible with the indicated age of No. 1, but 
would fit much better with that of No. 2. 

It is strange that so many parts of the skeletons are missing. One 
must surely assume that everything possible was done at the time 
of the find to recover all the bones; yet the state of preservation of 
the parts present is so good, there are so many of them, and they are 



Skeleton No. 1 Skeleton No. 2 
Sex——Weak male or a female. Male. 
Age—About 35 years. About 23 years. 
Parts belonging to it: Parts belonging to it: 
Smaller skullcap. Larger skullcap. 
Portion of right maxilla. Two portions of upper jaw. 
Lower jaw (complete except for Two pieces of lower jaw. 
damage to rami). 
Sound loose teeth (probably). Loose teeth. 
The two weaker humeri. The two strong humeri. 
Two damaged radii. 
Head of a weak ulna. The proximal parts of two strong 
Weak clavicle. Parts of the two scapulae. 

A nearly complete right and prox- 
imal half of the left femur. 
Complete left tibia. 
Two fragments of fibula (prob- Lower fifth of right fibula. 
ably). Left patella. 
Right calcaneus. 
Left astragalus. 
Portion of sacrum. 
Some small bones and fragments. Fragments and small bones. 

so distributed as to the skeletons, that the possibility of some of the 
missing parts, at least, having escaped detection and being still some- 
where in the débris of the excavation, cannot be excluded. 

All the skeletal parts show an advanced state of mineralization. In 
color they range from brownish to grayish, skull No. 1 representing 
the former and No. 2 the latter shading ; the teeth, however, are white, 
with yellowish roots, much as in crania from late burials. 

The two skulls are plainly normal specimens, free from disease or 

In age, No. 1 was an adult of about 35 years, No. 2 had just reached 
the adult stage. 


As to sex, were it not for the heavy supraorbital arch, No. 1 would 
be identifiable as a female. Such identification would conform with 
the characteristics of all the bones that may definitely be attributed 
to this subject, except the skull, and even this is rather feminine 
except in the lower frontal region. The upper as well as the lower 
jaw belonging to this skull is, for early man, rather weak, the teeth 
rather small; the humeri are feminine rather than masculine, both in 
their strength and in the proportion of the distal extremity ; the head 
of the radius and that of the ulna, belonging to this subject, are quite 
feminine, and so is the piece of the clavicle. The subject may how- 
ever have been a short and weak male. 

Morphologically the two skeletons, more particularly the two 
crania, show features of such interest and importance to anthropology 
that they deserve all possible attention. The vault of skull No. 1, and 
the skeletal parts of both individuals, are thoroughly Neanderthal in 
character ; but the jaws, teeth, and the vault of skull No. 2 represent 
nothing less than a bridge from the Neanderthal type to recent man. 


The vault: Looked at from above or from the side, or from the 
front or back, the two Spy skulls show without question the same 
identical basic type, which is the type of the Neanderthal skull and 
Neanderthal crania in general. But there is a vast difference in the 
development of the two crania. The supraorbital arches, while much 
alike, are somewhat heavier and somewhat more protruding forward 
in skull No. 1 than in No. 2. In No. 1 they are of nearly the same 
thickness throughout; in No. 2 they distinctly diminish in thickness 
from their median third outward. In both cases there was a per- 
ceptible depression for the glabella, so that viewed from the front 
there are really two supraorbital arches rather than one continuous 
arch, though connected below the glabella. The glabellar depression 
is broader in No. 2 than in No. 1, and the superior outline of the 
supraorbital ridge presents more of a curve, sloping gradually down- 
ward, in its outer half than is the case in No. 1. The superior border 
of the orbits, dull in No. 1 is sharper and better defined in No. 2. 

In all of its characters the supraorbital arch of No. 1 is much like 
that in the Neanderthal cranium, though less thick; in No. 2 the 
arch, while still of the same type, is distinctly advanced toward modern 
forms. The depression between the supraorbital arch and the fore- 
head is very marked in No. 1, being in general even more hol- 
lowed out than in the Neanderthal skull; in No. 2 there is still a 


depression, but this is more of the nature of an angle between the 
upward sloping surface of the arch and the rising frontal bone, than 
such a hollow as in skull No. 1. The forehead and frontal region of 
No. 1 is decidedly lower and smaller than in No. 2. It is slightly 
lower and perceptibly smaller than it is even in the Neanderthal 
specimen. From the top, both of the Spy skulls present a distinctly 
ovoid outline; in No. 1, however, this ovoid is very perceptibly 
narrower throughout than it is in No. 2. The broadest part of the 
ovoid corresponds in each case to the posterior third of the lower half 
of the parietals. The outline of the Neanderthal skull is much like 
that of Spy No. 1, though the latter is more markedly narrowed in 
the frontal region. The forehead and whole vault of No. 2 are 
markedly higher than they are in No. 1, reaching proportions that 
could be duplicated, save for the supraorbital arch, in many modern 
mesocephalic skuils. 

The temporal lines in skull No. 1 are poorly marked, in No. 2 very 
distinct ; but in neither skull are they very rough or elevated, and in 
neither do they reach over approximately the middle of the parietals. 

The sagittal region is but very slightly raised so that the outline 
of the vault from side to side would approach an oval in No. 1 (where 
slight keeling exists), and is quite oval in No. 2. The occipital region 
of No. 1 is typically Neanderthal, 7. e., flattened from above and below 
with a medium protrusion in the middle; in No. 2, while there are 
still distinct reminiscences of this type, the development is already 
much nearer to that in modern skulls. The temporal region in No. 1 
was evidently rather flat and narrow; in No. 2 it is about as in average 
modern skulls. Both skulls, but particularly No. 2, present a mild 
continuous occipital torus which extends towards the lambdoid suture 
and along this downward toward the mastoid region. The cranial 
sutures in both skulls, particularly the sagittal and the lambdoid, are 
much simpler than they are in average modern crania. In general 
the Spy No. 2 skull is larger and appears more masculine than No. 1. 
The mastoid and basal parts of the two skulls are largely deficient ; 
what remains shows a number of peculiarities, particularly in the left 
post-auricular region of skull No. 2. 

Endocranially, skull No. 1 shows that the anterior part of the brain 
was narrow, low, and nearer to the keeled type than it is in the brain 
of today. The left occipital lobe was perceptibly longer and more 
pointed; the right lobe was slightly shorter but somewhat broader 
and higher. In skull No. 2 the left hemisphere was perceptibly longer. 



Present, the lower portion of the right maxilla from the alveolus 
of the median incisor to the third molar. The bone is relatively rather 
slender, not thicker than in modern skulls. There was evidently but 
a moderate alveolar prognathism, comparable to that of many of the 
skulls of the yellow-brown races of today. The lower border of the 


(By HrpiiéKa) 

No. 1 No. 2 
1912 1927 1912 1027 
Length max., from glabella......... 20.3 20.25 | 20.0(?)! |near 19.9 
Length max., from ophryon........ 18.8 18.9 18.6 18.7 
Breadthemaxcnen cere reac eerecerr 14.7 14.6 15.4 15.4 
Cranialiindexsa, eee eee oe 72.4 V2ts near 7720\") “7704 
Height, floor of auditory meatus 
Jin @==bomaticrs sisi cte ude asta ie tangs soos | |rGEler navse) sooo | ERIS 153) 
Diamiatnonteayimineee ese 10.3 10.2 10.9 10.9 
Diameironts maxes eee El s7) sear 1244p res 1246 
Nasion-bregma diam............... 10.6 es . 
Glabella (center)—bregma.......... 9.8 near 10.9 
Brezma-lambda diam... -e-caees 1123 10.8 
Thickness of left parietal along and 
I cm. above squamous suture..... 6-8 mm. Paki: 5-8 mm. 
Thickness of frontal, at eminence....| 9 mm. ee a: 8 mm. 
Face: Breadth max. of supraorb. 
ALC in eee iat. sole eine T2}42 tie 1253 
Height of what may be called fore- 
headtneatere iach mien cea 2.5 aye: 3.0 
Endocranial length max.......... 1. M72 ee 17.02 
I eae aye 72 

1 Glabella wanting. 
2 The brain cavity is markedly broader, higher, and in general more spacious than that of 
No. 1, but measurements were impracticable. 

nasal aperture is well defined and slightly dull—not as sharp as in 
whites, nor as dull as in some recent primitive skulls. The teeth are 
in very close apposition ; and the Mi and M2 show already a distinct 
obliquity of their transverse (linguo-labial) axis, which is character- 
istic of and often carried further in modern whites. The palate was 
evidently of about the average depth of today. The teeth of both 
the upper and lower jaw show moderate to medium wear, the anterior 
teeth being more worn than the molars. 



The lower jaw attributed to skeleton No. I appears to have been 
somewhat misrepresented in earlier publications. The bone is quite 
as slender as the average lower jaw of man of today. The height 
of the body, though considerable if this was the jaw of a female, 
falls easily within the modern male limits; and the shapes and sizes 
of the teeth are much like those of modern whites. On the other 
hand the specimen shows a number of interesting primitive and in 
one or two respects peculiar features. 

There is no chin eminence, yet there is a slight broad chin with a 
moderate depression above. Were it not for the fact that the alveolar 
process protrudes somewhat forward, the chin formation would be 
more distinct. It is possible to duplicate these features among some 
primitive jaws of today. The mental foramina are situated further 
back than in modern jaws, being directly beneath the first molars. 
The lower border of the jaw is somewhat thicker and flatter in the 
anterior third (digastric insertion) than it is in the jaws of the white 
man of today. The digastric portion presents a low flat topped arch, 
reminding one somewhat of the much more marked condition in the 
Mauer mandible; more or less marked traces of such an arch are 
also present in modern jaws. The teeth look feminine. They are 
perceptibly smaller than those of some male whites of today. The 
alveolar process, from a line touching the rear of the third molars 
to the most anterior point of the alveolar border in the incisor region, 
measures but 4.9 cm., which is below the same measurement in many 
modern jaws. The external breadth of the dental arch is 7.1 cm., 
which is broader than in the majority of female white jaws of today 
but is equalled or even exceeded in some of those of the males; and 
this measurement is equalled or exceeded in numerous cases among 
more primitive whites and other peoples. 

Notwithstanding the above, the Spy jaw as a whole is larger antero- 
posteriorly than the jaws of modern man. This is due to the extension 
of the body of the jaw on each side beyond, 1. e., backward of, the 
dental arch. There were evidently not only fairly broad ascending 
rami, but also a considerable space (approximately 10 mm.) between 
the third molars and the anterior border of the rami. This space is 
generally absent or very reduced in modern jaws, and in not a few 
cases the third molars lie actually partly behind the anterior border 
of the ascending branches. It is an early character. 

Additional peculiarities are observable on the lingual surface of 
the bone. The anterior portion of the surface shows in its upper half 
a fairly marked convexity, a remnant of the thickness and convexity 


of these parts in still earlier mandibles. Remnants of this convexity 
are still met with occasionally in modern skulls. 

The inner aspect of the lower jaw anterior to the second molars 
gives a sense of spaciousness, with the inner symphyseal line more 
vertical than in most modern jaws; and the axes of the canines 
and incisors are somewhat evergent, rather than vertical or invergent 
as they are in most modern jaws. 

The mylohyoid ridge on each side is markedly developed and runs 
far forward (to beneath the posterior premolars) ; beneath it is a 
marked, long triangular fossa which is indicated more or less but 
never developed to such a degree in modern mandibles. This fossa 
is especially deep on the left side of the Spy jaw. 

The molars on the right are all of very nearly the same size; on 
the left the M3 is slightly broader than Mr and M2. The following 
additional measurements will show the moderate proportions of the 
bone and the teeth: 


(By HrpiiéKa) 

Skull 1 Skull 2 
1912 1927 IQ12 * 1927 
Diameibizonialneatsascaes este te eae 10.0 
Heizhtatisymplhysise. sone cs aes 3.55 3.65 
Height between Mi and M2....... eee e|nearenae ce 
Thickness at symphysis, without 
genialatubercleseee aac see re 1 
withythestubercless. 1. asec Tels 
Thickness of body between Mr and 
IIB ernck. ference a ene oer i Ties 
PCAN DT Cpe rasy tore) ays Scranton ects ip Ts aE: 
1. ine ded hagg Tee 
PERNT ANe Pico ou Gierasch tess Gs TS TS) 
IF Tear I.4 
PtH spaces ton crerasenletsyss a) Stee ext i ee see 
l. 1.6 TAT) 


Two fragments, stronger than in No. 1. ; 


Present, two pieces, chin portion wanting. Both the jaw and the 
teeth are stronger and larger than those of No. 1. The body of the 


bone was also higher than that in No. 1. The fragments do not per- 
mit of much description—the most interesting parts of the specimen 
are wanting. Of the molars, on the right Mr and M3 are alike in 
size, M2 appears slightly smaller than both; on left M1 and M2 are 
alike, M3 is slightly larger than either. 


Skull No. 1 

Median Length Maximum Breadth 

Fraipont Hrdliéka Fraipont Hrdliéka 

mm. mm. mm. mm. 
Lower M1, means of r. and]. ...... 10.02 TO 10.5 II.0 
M2) means of nrand Ia. 2.5| LOLO2 II.0 10.0 II.0 
M3, means of r.andl....... II .02 10.6 II.0 10.8 
Total median length of the three 
molats in position? . s 2 0. 4... ea Beh 23 ae 33 
Skull No. 2 
Lower M1, means of r. andl. ......| 11-11.5 35 II-II.5 Tees 
Merimeansiofir, andy. ....4)  Tl.02 135 I1.0 Iles 
M3, means of r.andl....... II-I2 11.8 II—I2 ne 5 
Total median length of the three 
molarsane position’. asian. sek syausys 35 ee 36 

1 See also writer's ‘‘New Data on the Teeth of Early Manand Certain Fossil Anthropoid Apes.”* 
Amer. Journ. Phys. Anthrop., Vol. 7, p. 109 et seq., 1924; but, due to anerror, the Spy No. 1 through- 
out that article is Spy No. 2, and vice versa. 

2 These measurements are certainly a trace too small. This is probably the length maximum, 
while those taken by the writer are the median lengths (see above paper); the maximum length is 
often slightly in excess of the median one. 

3 This total length is often a trace higher than the sum of the individual lengths due to some 
bulging of the crowns which does not become included in the individual measurements. 

Skeleton No. I 

As seen before, the only parts that can be definitely attributed to 
this skeleton are two imperfect humeri, the head of a left ulna, and 
a portion of a left clavicle. It is very probable, however, that the two 
radii belonged also to this individual, and they will be described in this 

The humeri.—Right, the lower two-thirds; left, the shaft without 
the extremities. The bones are of moderate strength and have be- 



longed evidently to either a weak male or more probably to a female. 
The distal end in the right bone is quite feminine. 

The shafts of the bone differ in shape from modern humeri in 
that both the mesial and the lateral surfaces are distinctly convex, 
much alike, and converging forward to a relatively high ridge for the 
latissimus dorsi muscle, from which a ridge for the pectoralis major 
diverges upwards from about the site of the deltoid tuberosity, which 
is undeveloped. The musculo-spiral groove is hardly noticeable. The 
posterior surface of the shaft, especially above the middle, is narrow, 
and above the middle becomes also somewhat unevenly convex. The 
lower fourth of the shaft is relatively decidedly higher (antero-poste- 
riorly) than it is in modern bones of similar dimensions. There is no 
perforation of the fossa (right), and no trace of a supracondyloid 
process. The lower articular part of the right bone resembles in nearly 
all essentials that of a female humerus of today, the only exceptions 
being that the trochlea is relatively slightly narrower from side to 
side, that its cross section (lateral) is but very slightly convex rather 
than markedly so as in modern bones, and that its mesial border is 
rather high. The depression above the capitulum is deeper than 1s 
usual in many, but not all, modern bones; and the olecranon fossa is 
both markedly deeper and more spacious than it is in modern humeri 
of similar size. 

Measurements r. Ls 
At=middlevot shait) antero-post. diame... scree crete rely si 2.2 2.1 
cite ralll scarry: tre revarats as ite he orcas ieire elrerenaye revt ctcvediecavel eevee melenci ob neeten clover 1.4 1.4 
Olecranon fossa: 
Fllevoditernance esto as svsciere cee ieee am eierervoreiietraicterseierene 20.0 mm. 
Brea thaytrcasetia.5 da steissaverisvene snort erate teiere eieeiens 28.0 mm. 
Breadth of articular facet : 
Gni middlejot its anterior aspect) nin stiles. «twas 38.0 mm. 

The radii—The two radii present belong more likely, it seems, to 
this skeleton than to No. 2. They were of moderate length, and of 
good feminine (or weak masculine) strength. The head of the left 
bone is decidedly feminine. Its maximum diameter is only 19 mm. 
The neck is narrow. The tuberosity and the shaft resemble those in 
modern bones, but the shaft shows a very marked curvature outward, 
just as in the Neanderthal radius, which is not equalled under normal 
conditions among modern bones. 

The ulnae—The head of the left ulna that clearly belongs to this 
skeleton is of feminine proportions, and so far as it is preserved it 
falls in every respect within the range of variation of the modern 


The clavicle-—The clavicle was slender, its shaft near the acromion 
rather angular. The fragment is too small to permit of other determi- 

The fibulae——There are two pieces of the shaft of the fibula that 
may belong to skeleton 1; they are both of but moderate strength. 

Skeleton No. 2 

The humeri.—Clearly a pair, and both masculine; the right very 
perceptibly the stronger at all points. The upper fourths are wanting. 
The shafts resemble to a considerable degree those of No. 1, but the 
convexity of the mesial and lateral surfaces is less marked, and the 
posterior surface is flat through a very large part of its extent. The 
relative height of the lower portion of the shaft is less marked than 
in the humeri of No. 1, and approaches closely that of modern male 
humeri of similar dimensions; nevertheless there is a trace of such 
relative highness of this part in the right bone. The deltoid tuberosity 
is again poorly developed, the latissimus and pectoralis ridges well 
marked ; the bicipital and muscular spiral groups are better repre- 
sented than they are in humeri of No. 1. The lower end and the 
articular facet are in nearly all particulars as in man of today ; only the 
olecranon fossa is larger, especially broader and deeper. There is 
again as in No. 1 a marked depression above the capitulum, on each 
side. No trace of a supracondyloid process appears on either bone. 
Perforations of the olecranon fossa: Right, one small and one 
minute ; left, two small with two minute. 


—— ee 

Measurements ia 1. 
Middleiofthe shart: antero-post. diam... 06.0.+.00- 00 o00os PHS 2.25 
TUSPE URIS ASE TEI glare a ene et lat ee aE ee 75 1.5 

The ulnae—Present, head of right, upper two-fifths of left. Bones 
clearly a pair, and masculine. Olecranon process decidedly more 
massive than in whites of today. The horizontal part of the greater 
sigmoid cavity is very perceptibly shallower than in modern bones. 
The neck is strong, especially on the right side. The shaft of the 
left bone as far as preserved shows quite a different shape from that 
in the modern ulna; the latter is prismatic, the former approaching 
a biconvex. 

The scapulae.—Pieces only, of two scapulae, right and left, probably 
of No. 2. Right piece: Glenoid cavity shallow, border very dull. 
Left: Glenoid shallow, border less dull. 

The femora.—The left femur, except for damage to the great 
trochanter, is in general very near in all its characteristics to that of 


the Neanderthal skeleton. It is slightly shorter; but it presents the 
same huge head and stout neck, a similar condition of the minor 
trochanter and of the gluteal ridge, the same curvature forward of 
the whole shaft, the same strength and shape of the shaft, the same 
but slightly developed linea aspera, a similar though less marked 
suprapopliteal convexity, and a considerable similarity of the condyles. 

It differs from the Neanderthal femur by a somewhat more marked 
subtrochanteric flattening ; by the absence of the higher patellar de- 
pression, with the presence of a deeper depression directly above the 
patellar surface; by the lesser convexity of the popliteal surface ; by 
somewhat broader and stouter condyles, with broader patellar sur- 
face; by somewhat duller anterior ridges of the condyles; and by a 
slightly greater torsion. These are all, however, rather secondary 
differences ; the essential characters of the two bones are much the 

The left femur, represented by its upper half, and formerly at- 
tributed to skeleton No. 1, is plainly a mate of the right femur and 
belongs with it to the male skeleton No. 2. It has much the same 
strength, same shape, same features. The writer's measurements of 
the two bones are given on the following page. 

The tibiae—The left whole tibia, the only one present, attaches 
itself clearly, by its size, strength, and other characters, to the two 
femora, and with them to skeleton No. 2. A detailed study of the 
bones leaves no possible doubt on this score. The bone, as already 
established by J. Fraipont, is especially characterized by the marked 
inclination backward of its head. This inclination is considerably 
more marked on the mesial than on the lateral side of the bone. The 
shaft of the bone is remarkably straight, in every way. The shape of 
the shaft is that of a lateral prism. (Hrdlicka’s type 2)." The bone is 
remarkable by its shortness and strength. It is particularly stout in 
the upper and lower fourths of the shaft. The mesial articular surface 
is decidedly more inclined backwards than in the modern tibia; 
and the lateral surface is shallower than that in modern bones. The 
malleolus is broader than in modern bones and decidedly stouter. The 
lower articular surface differs from that in modern bones in being 
relatively broader laterally and narrower antero-posteriorly, and in 
extending more obliquely onto the malleolus. Otherwise the details 
of the bone are much like those in recent man. 

* Hrdlicka, A., Typical Forms of Shaft of Long Bones. Proc. Assoc. Amer. 
Anat., pp. 55-60, New York, 1900. 
, Anthropology. Wistar Institute, 1919. 







Cues : 
0'9Z\Z'99 o'od|r'69 ° 
acts oe OrileSo°s eSaciSoe ~ 
GUcamaad Se Stil] > Ghee Cette G/iee aes 
amass ee 2 P : 
ere 6 ee ee Tome . 
apo bya I t eas 
-ul[Ao Ievau 
I A I ‘a T ‘I it 
Inwoy SNnIpery snismin yy PIQIL 


sees 0° oorl6'1Z ones eee 

6 . z 9 . I sneer gl . Zz, 4 . cf 
G22 ae St aoe | alee ol 
EO1| ie z z 
1v . cv . . . 
9 . cv . . . 
"* yeAO , I I 
1 I om T I 
inul9,J SNIPeY snisuin yy 

I ‘ON u0zaxS 


iducuayoy saddn 17 
Sch avalos etotn ads (01 Ihc cahat seater na ees xapuy 

Freeeeeees ss ocurprp asaasuesy 
"++ *uIerp *ysod-o19}uUe 
Bene "tress QQuaTaJUINOIL) /appprwu 1 

HN Oee oie sie yeceriets ‘auids ss9] ‘uorisod ul 

») Biel gie)s ef Oa ei 8) 6 execu i615) U. 8 (oe) ue: Je[Apuooiq 
8) 8) s)'e 6: €.8,8 LOSS 6 ee eels. or ele xPul y3uaT 

Rbavede ters +++ ++s-grpprut ye yyeys Jo addy, 

VOL. 83 



*XPUl “UIRIC] ¢ 
‘31Qe7 BY} UO Sal] sU0g 9y} SB ‘TeyUOZTIOY sy} WOIY _ 

LO sue) iele Seine) ei |ialts) ol \sl laze) iio eb ei seMelal sie) elieiis ells Ajsorsradns 
yidap ‘yojou 1e;Apuoos94uyT 

TL beet Sp pe geee aa el |e ee [Bo1}I9A “WeIp ‘afApuUod [e19}eT 
c'9 “oT BOIVIVA ‘URIP ‘aJAPUOD [eIpa| 
Zaks yo) O OG 0 Iho oo Onatieoron xXPUul “UIeIp ‘a]Apuoo [e197 eT 
89 = enelle evdtaien Nt |Ke/aatecediscellellivre XPUul “weIp ‘a,Apuoo [PIP 
ae 6 see s)iwrajist || lelleslel(eitede ns elicllelis)\ellelieJel.a)/e. is) \e) ele. XPUL yipeeig 
ipua 1D1Stq 
z ¢ oO o a) (6) site) (e),e Xe) (al l6 Wa) i sie 6/(6).6valeiie) te. Tete) vila Uru “URI 
Bed Ne cs 0 rot gee atest ccc xe “WRI 
I a I a I a I a a] i I i I a I 4 [iS => aa eee 
eIqrh Inul3.J snipey snisuin yy eIqrL Inul3 J Sniper snisuin fy 
Z ‘ON U0 .lEAS I “ON U0 [VxS 



The fibulae—Present, about the lower fifth of the right bone. 
The strength of the bone and also the fact that the union line of the 
epiphysis is still perceptible, identifies the bone decisively with skele- 
ton No. 2. The outer surface of the lower end is rather bibeveled, 
rising to a median ridge; and the fossa next to the articular facet 
is small and shallow. The facet itself seems also to differ from that 
of modern bones by a greater length from above downwards. 

The patella.—The left complete patella, originally identified erro- 
neously as right, doubtless masculine, may be attributed safely to 
skeleton No. 2. The dimensions and form are close to those in modern 
man ; but the articular area is relatively broad. The upper and outer 
border shows a moderate notch for the vastus lateralis. 


FLGI SH Eye astcnstisae eee ase eet ae Sle ete Sees 4.65 
Breadth a ceieciecher tae eitelsta clei ao waicncvaee ei nieetend nes Fe 
eWaTKTESS pitriaexenasyar cierto o cretetereersl ove arent saves aves 2:3 

The calcaneus.—Present, the right bone; masculine, and doubtless 
belonging to skeleton No. 2. The mesial and anterior parts of the 
bone are badly damaged. Notwithstanding this it is plain that the 
bone was very stout and very short. The stoutness is particularly 
marked in the body and the heel, but extended really throughout the 
bone, so that the articular surface for the astragalus is broader than 
in modern bones. The shortness of the bone is due practically entirely 
to the shortness of its anterior portion (the part anterior to the rear 
facet for the tarsus). 

The bone shows a number of interesting particulars. One is the 
relatively slight development of the medial process and the adjacent 
border bounding anteriorly the inferior surface of the tuberosity ; the 
second is the marked development of the groove for the long flexor 
muscle of the great toe; the third is the relative narrowness and 
shallow concavity of the mesial surface of the body. The articular 
facets for the astragalus fall within the range of their variation in 
modern bones—a range known to be extensive. 

The astragalus—tThe left astragalus, belonging plainly to the 
above described calcaneus and pertaining with it to skeleton No. 2. 
The bone, like the calcaneus, is stout but relatively short antero- 
posteriorly. In details it does not differ greatly from modern bones, 
except in dimensions and to some extent the form of the articular 
surface. The lateral groove between the head and the body is, how- 
ever, less spacious than in modern bones. 


The sacrum.—Present, the uppermost segment; it does not appear 
to have been as yet fully united with the rest of the bone; belongs 
doubtless to skeleton No. 2. Nothing very distinctive. 


Neither previous publications nor the present volume furnishes a 
wholly adequate study of the important Spy skeletons. Such a study 
with extensive comparisons of more recently discovered human ma- 
terials is still to be made. Furthermore, no endocranial casts of these 
very instructive skulls have as yet been available. 

The Spy find is without question the most important ever made in 
relation to the problem of transition from the Neanderthal to the more 
modern forms of man. Here in practically one grave, certainly at 
the same level and under the same associations, are found two skele- 
tons, one of which is in many respects still typically Neanderthal ; 
but the jaws and the teeth of this skeleton, and the skull of the second 
subject, are far in advance of the Neanderthal stage and correspond- 
ingly nearer to modern man. No better demonstration could have 
been furnished, or could reasonably be wished for, of the transitional 
potentialities among the later Neanderthal representatives, to which 
the skeletons evidently beiong, towards the modern human type. 

The cultural conditions found in the terrace may be of significance 
in this connection. There is a very strong probability that the two 
skeletons represented regular intentional burials ; and if so, they may 
well belong to the time of the upper Mousterian, if not even later, 

Meanwhile, the precious Spy remains are housed in a private 
residence, where in a few minutes they could be destroyed by fire, 
which would mean irreparable loss to science. 


One of the most important finds of the skeletal remains of Quater- 
nary man is unquestionably that of the Krapina shelter, near Zagreb, 
in northern Croatia. The discovery comprises a whole series of 
human bones of well-determined geological age, and the remains were 
not recovered accidentally or by ignorant laborers, but through pro- 
longed, painstaking exploration. The bones themselves are for the 
most part fragmentary, which is much to be regretted, but they 
represent, as now estimated, over 20 individuals, and they show on 
one hand such similarities and on the other such variation of structure, 
that they are of great value to the student of ancient humanity. 


The Spy rock and cave. (Hrdlicka, 1023.) 


Spy skull No. 1, side view. (After Fraipont.) 


The Spy skull No. 2. (After Fraipont and Lohest.) 

CRYQPIH) *“(y8t4) z ‘ON pue (PI) 1 ON TIMYs Ads 



1. Spy skull No. 1. 

2. Spy skull No. 2, showing contrast in form of vault. 


The lower jaw of Spy skull No. 1. (After Fraipont and Lohest.) 


The Krapina rock shelter is an ancient though not very deep 
hollow, worn out in the basic sandstone by the now small stream of 
Krapinica, and subsequently filled with water-worn stones, some 
aluvia, and with much detritus resulting from the decomposing rock 

Fic. 19.—A schematic view, in transverse section, of the Krapina hollow. 
(After Gorjanovi¢-Kramberger. ) 
M. S.= Mediterranean sandstone; J, the lower deposits, mostly pebbles 
(a) and alluvium (b); II, the upper strata, composed of disintegrated rock, 
and (cr—cg) cultural remains. 

of the hollow (fig. 19). Since the formation of the latter, the Krapi- 
nica has cut its channel so that it now flows 82 feet (25 meters) below 
its floor level. Before the shelter was filled and during the process, 
it was utilized by early man of the region, at first but occasionally, 
later for some time perhaps continuously, and the accumulations in 


the cave were augmented by the remains of fireplaces and by refuse, 
including many primitive stone implements and rejects, as well as 
animal bones ; and these accumulations were found to contain numer- 
ous human bones in more or less fragmentary condition. 

The locality became known in 1895, after two Croatian teachers 
discovered in the superficial deposits of the shelter some teeth of a 
rhinoceros and fragments of other fossil bones. These finds were 
brought to the attention of the scientific men at Zagreb (the capital 
of Croatia, formerly “Agram”’), but no thorough examination of the 
site was undertaken until 1899. In that year the place was visited 
by K. Gorjanovi¢-Kramberger, professor of geology and paleontology 
of the University of Zagreb and Director of the Geological Division 
of the Narodni Muzej of the same city. 

The deposits in the shelter and their stratification were found well 
exposed. They were over 26 feet in thickness from top to base. The 
initial work showed ashes, charcoal, burnt sand and rejects of stone 
industry, stone implements, and a human molar. The excavations 
proper, after a determination of nine distinct cultural layers, were 
begun from the top and carried very carefully downward. They 
proved from the start very fruitful,’ giving many bones of Quaternary 
animals, many rejects of stone industry with some implements, a 
portion of a human maxilla, 80 loose teeth, and many pieces of skulls, 
lower jaws and other parts of the skeleton. From 1900 to 1905 the 
painstaking exploration of the shelter was carried on, partly by 
Gorjanovi¢é-Kramberger, partly by S. Osterman, and D. Galijan, his 
assistants, until the deposits were exhausted. 

Notwithstanding the presence of numerous cultural layers and the 
evidently long time of use and occupation of the shelter, the whole 
represented apparently but one large cultural period, and this during 
a fairly warm interglacial time. The fauna is not that of a cold 
climate. It consists, aside from a few snails, birds and a turtle, of the 

Rhinoceros mercku (frequent) Myoxus glis 
Ursus spelaeus (frequent ) Arctomys marmota 
Bos primigenius (frequent ) Cricetus frument. 
Castor fiber (fairly frequent) Equus caballus 
Canis lupus Sus scrofa ferus 
Ursus arctos Cervus elaphus 
Felis catus Cervus capreolus 
Mustela foina Cervus euryceros 

Lutra vulg. 

1 These first results were reported by Gorjanovic-Kramberger in “ Der palae- 
olitische Mensch und seine Zeitgenossen aus dem Diluvium von Krapina in 
Kroatien.” Mitteil. Anthrop. Ges. Wien, Vol. 31, pp. 164-197, 4 pls., 13 figs., 1901. 


There were no traces of the mammoth or of Rhinoceros tichorhinus. 
The remains found represent either completely extinct forms, or 
forms that have not hitherto been known from Croatia or known 
only from the diluvial times. As a whole the fauna resembles closely 
the fauna of the diluvial station of Taubach, Germany. 


These are described in a number of separate papers, both by 
Gorjanovi¢-Kramberger and by others (see final bibliography). The 
total number of worked stones recovered from the Krapina shelter 
reaches approximately 1,000, but most of these are waste and rejects. 
They are mainly of flint, but occasionally also of quartz, chalcedony, 
and jasper. The better characterized specimens are “ typically Mous- 
terian”’ (Obermeier), and this applies to all layers. Gorjanovic- 
Kramberger believed that he found also evidence of some utilization 
of bone. 

To the writer it seems that the stone industry of Krapina should 
be subjected to a restudy in the light of present knowledge. It is true 
that there are typically Mousterian implements; but there are also 
blades that seem to suggest later developments. 


The collective human skeletal remains recovered from the Krapina 
shelter are more numerous than those found in any other locality of 
similar age, though they are very fragmentary. They represent indi- 
viduals of all ages, from infancy to senility. They comprise many 
parts of the skull, numerous fragments of the jaws ranging to nearly 
complete mandibles, many teeth, and numerous pieces of other parts 
of the skeleton. Most of these remains have already been thoroughly 
studied and described by Professor Gorjanovi¢-Kramberger in his 
principal memoir (1906) and in a series of other publications (see 
bibliography ). 

Through the courtesy of Professor Gorjanovi¢-Kramberger and 
Dr. E, Sulje, of the Geological Division at the Narodni Muzej, in 
Zagreb, the writer was privileged, in June, 1912, and again in 1923, 
to examine the Krapina originals. This was not done with any need 
or hope of adding anything to Professor Gorjanovi¢-Kramberger’s 
thorough description of the specimens, but rather because a personal 
inspection and handling of the original objects in a case of such 
importance helps to fix in the mind, more than any description could, 
their extraordinary characteristics. 


The human bones are, for the most part, in pieces. Notwithstand- 
ing their defective condition, however, the collection impresses the 
student forcibly by its scientific importance. As in the case of the 
Mauer jaw, the Neanderthal skeleton, and the other specimens de- 
rived from early man in Europe, the material bears the unmistakable 
stamp of genuineness and preciousness to anthropology, impressions 
which are wanting in later remains and in the case of finds that are 
merely urged as aucient. 

The bones represent, as already mentioned, the remains of at least 
20 individuals of both sexes, ranging from childhood to ripe adult 
age. The fragmentation of the skulls (pls. 47-55) lower jaws and 
some of the long bones is excessive, and of such a nature as strongly 
to suggest that it was caused otherwise than by accidental breaking 
or crushing. A number of the fragments show also the effects of 
burning, and one specimen, a portion of the supraorbital part of a 
frontal, presents some cuts. These different conditions, together with 
the absence of many parts of the skulls and bones, with a total lack 
of association of the fragments and the commingling of the human 
with the animal bones, led Gorjanovi¢é-Kramberger to the opinion, 
now generally shared, that the remains represent the leavings of 
occasional cannibalistic feasts and are not burials. 

The Krapina bones are whitish, yellowish, or light brownish in 
color. They are not of great weight, but a chemical examination has 
shown that they are much altered in constitution, particularly in the 
fluorine-phosphates proportions. 

The long and other bones of the skeleton show the Krapina man 
to have been, as compared with central European white man of today, 
of moderate stature and of strong, though, except for the powerful 
jaws, not excessive muscular development. Some individuals were 
very perceptibly weaker than others. As to form, particularly in the 
upper extremities, the bones in general are perceptibly more modern 
in type than those of the Neanderthal or Spy man, nevertheless they 
present, as well shown by Professor Gorjanovi¢é-Kramberger, numer- 
ous and important primitive features. 

The fragments of the skulls show that the bones of the vault were 
more or less thicker than they are in the white man of today. The 
crania were of good size externally, but the brain cavities were 
probably below the present average. The vault of the skull was of 
good length and at the same time fairly broad, so that the cephalic 
index, at least in some of the individuals, was more elevated than 
is usual in the crania of early man. They were also characterized, 


as were the Neanderthal and other crania of the man from the 
Mousterian period, by relative lowness of the vault, and in every 
instance among the adults by a pronounced, complete supraorbital 
arch. The last-named feature, though less marked, is plainly dis- 
tinguishable even in the children. Its invariable presence is a definite 
proof of the fact, not quite well established before, that up to a 
certain phase of the Quaternary period this arch was a regular 
characteristic of the early man of a large part of Europe. 

A number of interesting features are presented by the fragments 
of the temporals. The mastoids are less developed than in man of 
today, approaching correspondingly the anthropoid form. They are 
rather slender and small, even in the adult male. The tympanic ring, 
on the other hand, is massive. The glenoid fossae are not level 
from side to side or even nearly so, as in man of today, but are very 
perceptibly slanting in such a manner that their distal end is decidedly 
higher than the mesial. These and other primitive features, which 
show the Krapina man to approach the earlier primate forms, have 
since become largely modified or eliminated in the human skull. 

The jaws and teeth, like other cranial parts, present many marks 
of a less advanced stage of evolution. The lower jaws in particular 
are very interesting. The symphysis or fore part of these bones, while 
in some possessing already a faint trace of the future chin eminence, 
slopes invariably more or less downward and backward, thus approach- 
ing the form of the mandible in apes. The mandibles are massive and 
in males high. Except in this height they are akin to the lower jaws 
of the La Quina and La Chapelle skulls, and represent decidedly more 
primitive forms than the mandibulae of any man of historic times, 
though they are more or less nearer to the modern type than is the 
Mauer jaw. 

Of the upper maxilla there are eight or nine imperfect specimens, 
the majority from young subjects. They differ in their development 
and conformation, but primitive characteristics are numerous. One 
of the best-preserved fragments, marked ‘“ E” or “19,” proceeding 
probably from a male adolescent and representing the part of the 
jaw from the right median incisor to the left second premolar, shows 
considerable height of the bone, a straight and prognathic alveolar 
process, a very spacious high palate, pronounced submasal fossae, and 
broad nasal aperture. 

The teeth of the Krapina man offer numerous peculiarities, most 
of which point to lower stages of differentiation. They are in general 
very perceptibly larger than those of the modern white man; their 



roots, especially, are longer; and there are some details of form, 
particularly in the crowns of the incisors and molars, which are related 
to anthropoid features. Notwithstanding these facts, the Krapina 
teeth, and particularly the canines, are on the whole fairly near those 
of present man. 


The majority of the fragments are of the skulls of children and 


This is one of the most valuable pieces. It comprises the larger 
part of the frontal with portions of both parietals. The bones are 
somewhat thicker than in a modern skull of similar age, the parietals 
reaching 4.6 mm. along the broken border. The parts preserved show 
that the skull was originally broad. Also the sutures are distinctly 
better serrated than they are in the various Neanderthal crania, and 
there is a persistence of the metopic suture. There is a distinct though 
mild indication of a complete supraorbital arch, with a slight de- 
pression above it. The forehead is, however, fairly high, well arched, 
but slightly sloping, and shows faintly lateral eminences, as in white 
children of today. There is a shallow depression posterior and paral- 
lel to the coronal suture—as is not infrequent in modern white skulls. 
The postorbital narrowing is but little marked in the specimen. 


The material comprises most of the right with an upper portion 
of the left parietal and a good part of the occipital bone. This piece 
also fails to give the impression of a narrowness of the skull; more- 
over, the formation of the parietal bone both superiorly and laterally 
approaches those in modern skulls. The occipital squama, however, 
shows the characteristic form of the Neanderthalers, being relatively 
broad from side to side and showing mild superior flattening with 
a fairly marked subinionic depression; the protrusion is, however, 
but moderate. There is an indication of occipital torus. The sutures, 
especially the lambdoid, are relatively simple. The bones are appreci- 
ably thicker than in the average modern skull of about this age; the 
thickness of the parietal, about the middle of the squama, is about 
5 mm. The impressions of both the cerebrum and the cerebellum are 
strongly marked on the occipital bone; and the latter shows also 
some peculiarities of vascular impressions. 



Though very defective this is an important specimen, preserving 
as it does the upper parts of the face, the lower portion of the frontal, 
the right temporal, and a large portion of the right parietal. The 
specimen has been reconstructed from five pieces, which however 
plainly belong to each other. The parts preserved show convincingly 
that the skull was relatively broad and not very long. The outline 
of the norma superior was a fairly broad and but moderately long 
ovoid. The cranial index was evidently at least that of sub-brachy- 
cephaly ; Gorjanovi¢-Kramberger estimated the length maximum 
of the skull at 17.8 cm., breadth maximum, 14.9 cm., cranial index 
83.7. This exceptional and very interesting feature, seen for the first 
time in early man, is also more or less perceptible on the other 
Krapina skull remains. 

The sex of the specimen is somewhat uncertain. The supraorbital 
arches and other parts of the face would seem to indicate a smaller 
male, but the mastoids and the cranial bones are feminine. The sub- 
ject was probably a female. The minimum frontal diameter (9.9 cm.) 
and the external biorbital (11.8 cm.) are even slightly smaller than 
those of the Gibraltar female, and the two specimens show similarity 
also in other particulars. 

The supraorbital arches, though distinctly bilateral, form never- 
theless a complete and rather heavy torus with a fairly marked and 
broad glabella depression. The torus measures in thickness, above 
the orbital foramen, 13.8; at the middle, 10; and at the outer end, 
II-I2 mm. Its ends unite with broad and stout processes of the 
malars, as in other Neanderthalers. The glabella is not carried as far 
forward as in the Gibraltar skull. The interorbital process of the 
frontal is stout, as is general in Neanderthal skulls, the minimum 
interorbital diameter measuring 2.9 cm. (Gibraltar 2.8 cm.). The 
inner biorbital breadth is 10.7 cm. The nasion is situated rather high 
but not excessively so. There is no nasion depression, the region from 
glabella to the free end of the nasals presenting a broad moderate 
concavity increasing downward. The nasal bones are broad (min. 
breadth of right 9, left 8.5 mm.). In its upper part the mid-nasal 
suture turns at an angle to the left, indicating an earlier existence at 
nasion of a good-sized intercalated bone. 

The borders of the orbits though rather stout are fairly well 
defined, more as they would be in a female of this type than in a 
male. The planes of the orbits, both from above downwards and 
laterally, approach those in other Neanderthalers. The orbits are 


large, megaseme ; yet in general they come a trace closer to those of 
strong modern skulls than do those of the Gibraltar or La Chapelle 
crania. Approximate measurements (Hrdlicka): Height, r. 3.8; 
I. near 3.8 cm.; breadth (from dacryon) r. 4.0; 1. 3.8 cm.; Index, r. 
near 95.0, 1. near roo. The malars, as in other Neanderthalers, were 
neither protruding nor large; but as already indicated they had 
powerful and broad frontal processes. The zygomae are wholly want- 
ing. The suborbital spaces (‘‘ canine fossae’’) are full and even 
slightly bulging, as in all other Neanderthalers. The nose was broad 
(breadth max. near 3.0 cm.) ; the lower parts are damaged or absent. 
The bones are all distinctly stronger than in modern skulls. 

The vault—The bones of the vault are not especially thick, the 
maximum of the parietal not exceeding 8 mm. and reaching this figure 
at only a few points. In this respect it differs markedly from the 
Gibraltar skull. Above the supraorbital ridges is a fairly broad but 
not deep depression, much as in the Gibraltar. The forehead above 
this was doubtless rather low and more or less sloping, but most 
of the squama is missing. The temporo-sphenoidal region 1s much 
as in modern skulls. The pterion is of the H type, rather broad. The 
temporal lines were not pronounced and ran at considerable distance 
from the sagittal suture. The parietal bone is more modern than in 
any of the western Neanderthal skulls. It is very perceptibly more 
bulging, and the eminence is situated less low and less posteriorly. 

The temporal bone is of good dimensions, not low as in other 
Neanderthalers. The zygomae were evidently not very massive, 
though much stronger than they are in modern female crania. The 
posterior root of the zygoma forms a crest, especially in its distal 
half, but falls weil within the range of modern variation in the same 
feature. The mastoid is decidedly small and slender. Behind it is 
seen the upper end of a broad digastric groove, reaching higher than 
in modern crania. The base is mostly wanting; but what is present 
shows some interesting conditions. The glenoid fossa is broad trans- 
versely, fairly deep, slightly less oblique than in most recent skulls, 
and more effectively bound posteriorly by the middle root of the 
zygoma and the anterior wall of the tympanic bone. And there is a 
considerable space, as in all the Neanderthalers, between the tympanic 
ridge and the mastoid (11 mm.). There was no styloid. 

Endocranially, the Krapina “C” skull shows numerous and well 
impressed marks of brain convolutions. The frontal lobes were more 
beaked inferiorly—though not narrowly so—than they are in modern 
skulls ; and the temporal lobes did not bulge out to the same degree 
that they do in the skulls of present day Europeans. The petrous 


part is relatively bulkier than in modern skulls, and the internal 
auditory meatus is larger and situated somewhat more superiorly. 
The sigmoid part of the lateral sinus is narrow but very deep; this is 
due to much lesser hollowing out of the adjacent portion of the 


Frontal bones.—Present, lower portions of three frontals. All 
show pronounced supraorbital torus and other Neanderthaloid char- 
acters. The nasal process, seen in two of the fragments, is stout. 

An important specimen is a larger part of an evidently adult male 
frontal (G.-K. 1g9o1, pl. 1, fig. 1) which shows the remnant of a com- 
plete supraorbital torus, without any diminution in its stoutness from 
about its middle to the distal end (near middle, 12, at outer end, 
12 mm.). The forehead was broad and as well arched as in many 
not very high skulls today. The temporal ridges are moderate. The 
thickness of the squama is not greater than it is in many strong skulls 
of today (max. 8.5 mm.). The metopic ridge is short and moderate. 
The frontal lobes were broad and quite as full as in many a modern 

In another fragment (K 15) the arches measure 13 mm. in 
thickness at middle, 12 mm. distally, above fracture. The orbital 
borders are well marked, and there is a distinct broad concavity at 
the glabella. The interorbital breadth is near 2.8 cm. All the bones 
of this skull were evidently of more moderate strength than those 
of some of the other specimens. 

A portion of a frontal, to which are attached a large part of the 
right and a fragment of the left parietal, is evidently of a young 
subject. The bones are not thick. The frontal bone shows a fair 
development. The parietals indicate once more a relatively broad 
skullcap. There was no sagittal elevation. The sutures were some- 
what simple. 

Fragments of occipitals—There are several fragments of adult 
occipital bones. These were in part described for Gorjanovi¢- 
Kramberger by Klaatsch. The latter reported (studies on casts) 
that these bones show distinct differences from those of the present 
day, both dorsally and ventrally; and that they correspondingly ap- 
proach the occipitals of the Neanderthalers. There is the same hori- 
zontal welt or torus in place of the superior nuchal line, with a more 
or less marked epimedian depression; while beneath the torus the 
squama shows a more or less distinct transverse concavity. The 
impressions of the sulci on the ventral surface show more or less 



aberrant forms from those in a majority of the skulls of today. The 
transverse sulci are relatively shallow. Brain impressions are in 
general well marked to strong. 

About the best preserved piece is that described and pictured by 
Gorjanovi¢-Kramberger in 1902 (Mittl. Anthr. Ges. Wien., pl. 2, figs. 
3 and 4). The bone is thicker than the modern mean, and presents, 
though they are not very pronounced, the usual Neanderthaloid fea- 
tures, and shows a more prominent right lobe of the cerebrum, with 
but a trace of lateral sulci beneath. 

Reconstruction of skull D.—From a number of fragments and 
with the help of photography, Professor Gorjanovi¢-Kramberger at- 
tempted the reconstruction of one of the male adult skulls (D). The 
results, while necessarily of limited value, indicate nevertheless an- 
other brachycephal, with a fairly modern-like vault, with the exception 
of the supraorbital torus and the subinion depression on the occipital. 

Numerous measurements are given of the reconstruction; but the 
element of uncertainty is too strong to permit of giving these a full 

Additional fragments —There are a number of additional pieces of 
skulls, all of which show points of interest and more or less primitive- 
ness ; they show also, however, other features of a transitional nature 
towards modern forms (p. 129). Among the most interesting are 
several fragments of temporal bones with the auditory meatus and 
the mastoids. The mastoids are everywhere but poorly developed ; 
the posterior roots of the zygomae rise in pronounced dull ridges. 
The glenoid fossa in one of the pieces where it is well preserved is 
deep, moderately spacious, and considerably more strongly bound 
mesially than in modern skulls; also it slopes considerably upward 
and outward. The pre-mastoid space (space inferiorly between the 
tympanic ring or wall and the mastoid), so characteristic of the 
Neanderthalers, is not present in the three pieces where conditions 
can be well seen. But in all the fragments there is a marked digastric 


There are six fragments of upper jaws (A-F), five of which 
are from individuals of less than 20 years of age, the sixth from one 
over 20. The fragments indicate that the Krapina maxillae were 
somewhat narrower than those of other Neanderthalers. In their sub- 
nasal proportions they ranged, owing probably to sex differences, 
from low to high. They are strong but not massive. They were 
evidently broad in front but not exceptionally prognathic. 


One of the larger pieces from an adolescent (E) shows a broad, 
rather flat, slanting, high front (alv. pt. to base of spine 2.7 cm.), 
a rather strong though short bifid spine, lower nasal borders with 
subnasal fossae (double on left, a small mesial external and a larger 
and deeper more lateral internal) ; and a broad nose. The alveoli 
are strong, the teeth larger than modern. The incisors are all 
markedly shovel-shaped, with single to double lingual cuspules. The 
canine is but little higher than the incisors and not very strong; 
it also shows a bilateral hollowing out of the lingual surface. The 
bicuspids, much as in modern man though larger, show too on the 
lingual surface of the outer cusp a bilateral fossa. The palate was 
rather high and spacious. 


This series shows on the whole somewhat less fragmentation than 
other parts, and is of great interest. There are nine bones (A-I), 
ranging from that of a child of about 7 to one of an adult over 40 
years of age. All the bones show the same basic primitive type, but 
with individual variation in all the essentials. The importance of this 
material calls for a somewhat detailed description. Thanks to having 
seen the originals, and to an excellent series of casts given me by 
Professor Gorjanovié-Kramberger, it will be possible to give my 
own notes on the specimens, which however agree almost entirely 
with those of that distinguished author. The measurements are 
essentially his, however. 

Lower jaw A—Fragment of a juvenile mandible with middle 
incisors in eruption (child of about seven years). Was evidently 
somewhat prognathic (symphyseal regions receding). Thickness at 
symphysis, 11.3 mm. 

Lower jaw B.—A portion of the mandible of a child after a full 
eruption of the middle incisors, extending from the right canine to 
the left M 1. (Child of eight years or a little over.) Prognathic. 

Lower jaw C.—Present, the right half of the body (up to the left 
canine) and the right ramus. Belonged to an adolescent of about 13 
years of age. Is of a relatively moderate size, with but moderate 
height of the body, but the body is stout and the teeth are large. The 
symphyseal portion is flat and receding. The ramus approaches verti- 
cal, was of good but not excessive height and breadth, and with the 
sigmoid notch well developed. The outline of the angle is rounded, 
nevertheless the angle is fairly distinct and the region approaches 
closely to that of modern jaws. The mylohyoid ridges are relatively 


strong. A marked crest extends from the mylohyoid ridge to the 
mandibular foramen. The dental arch diverged very perceptibly 
from before backwards. 

Measurements : cm. 
eight! at symphysis: <anpkoxten.och clas Soe « sonar ee oe eee 2.9 
leigh wat. 5 Mia a hte earns ute aera realy fect aesrcucsin ater op epee ty ota nn Eon carne 2.0 
Aihickness at symp hysiSewic cso oeiao ae eS OT ree 1.34 
Ahickomess)- alte MDa sale cree Oa era tetet ae aa cs etera: aps Alaa euattnts Cea ee Rep ncn see MRO 1.76 
Breadth of mattis titer sem nee, tice a oie in oe a ots Mae ence eae eee 2.95 

Lower jaw D.—A fragment of the anterior part of the left body, 
from the symphysis to the alveolus, with five teeth; estimated to have 
belonged to an adolescent of 16-18 years. Female. The bone is stout, 
though within the range of variation of strongest modern jaws. The 
body was low, as usual in a female. The symphyseal portion, flattened 
and slightly receding, shows a moderate eminence of a chin. The 
inferior border forms a well marked flat surface, with long facet 
for the attachment of the digastric muscle. The lingual surface of 
the bone shows a low, dull transverse epimedian ridge, and also a 
low vertical central ridge, with bilateral shallow depressions both 
above and below. The teeth in size are about as those in strong lower 
jaws of today. The canine and the lateral incisor were moderately 
shovel-shaped ; the anterior bicuspid shows on its labial cusp remnants 
of the same condition. In both shape and size the canine resembles 
closely the incisor, though it is broader and its body is thicker. The 
first molar is relatively somewhat long and narrow (ant.-post. diam. 
12; transv. diam. 10.5 mm.). 

Measurements: (G.-K.) cm. 
Eleishteatesymphysiswestimatedarrnccnricicce emcee nee ccna 3.3 
PGS oat ata os Meese cies et es ie crite oe Enea vette s Ua et a Opa RARE VATS Sra 3.05 
PUGH Sea AM Tas Se sions Guess eeatokohetol ewer rar aeh have dialer eats TA Rac Tne Rete nee 2.9 
Mhickness tat MsymplryySisis ces eaite loeee weve eee eee elsic ener etoleaee 1.36 
hicktaessteaitiy Mite ors carsycbeya.5 ea lowane ah re navcastaer ntee Pee RIE eRe SUA Ee cat Oia 1.45 

Lower jaw E.—The larger portion of the left body, probably of 
a female less than 20 years old. The bone is stout and the teeth are 
large; yet the specimen probably belonged to a female, the body 
being too low for a male. The symphysis is flat and slopes backward 
in a straight line ; it has no appreciable evidence of a chin. The canine 
is stout and dull-pointed, otherwise much like the neighboring incisor. 
The lower border is markedly flattened for the digastric attachments. 
Lingually, anteriorly the bone resembles the preceding specimen (D), 
though the ridges and depressions are less defined. The mylohyoid 
ridge is unusually pronounced, the fossa for the submaxillary gland 
deep and broad. 


Measurements : cm. 
EUG lteter syill Ply Gls mercer ene ca ticvessialo oe: sorte a oteeicos is & aro cto Cae ore 3.5 
He le TICE lay rere) tetera eyelet stofcye. cic + sso 'cce. 4°54, bie lars wlereee grein ene bee swe eae 
PICK MES SEATS VMN EIVSISH OES ope. 2 sists, co ese oe cow veneer Owe ae eee 1.35 
Mibhickmessmate Vicbeerm areetert nee eitte. one ee toe AP ey ed Sea ey 1.65 

Lower jaw F.—A portion of the left body, from Ir to M1, of an 
adult, probably female.’ 

The bone is fairly stout. The symphyseal region was probably 
flat, or slightly receding, with a minute indication of a chin eminence. 
The incisor part of the jaw is square, connecting with the body at a 
dull angle formed by the canine. Similar squareness is also found, 
though rarely, in modern jaws. In details the bone resembles frag- 
ment E. 

Measurements : cm. 
Fetght, tothe leit of the: symphysis, ApprOx. 5.0.6. cscs csccceevess aay 
icichtwatml: 2am Ce ee eet hee a es eee ade ERS Re 2.74 
eDnicknessmataysy ml pliyGise ese ate eee shoe te caticcc ete rce es ice se cet 1.45 
MACE Selig MICH LAler OLAIMEN (1s peyaly fee ais Sid. Gite ele «avs <'yseelb Sissies ed ete 1.55 

Lower jaw G.—The right and a portion of the left body of an 
adult jaw, female, with the three right molars. A stout but low bone, 
with a straight receding symphyseal line, with a merest trace of a 
chin swelling. The dental arch was U-shaped, opening somewhat 
from P2 backward. The teeth are about as large as in strong modern 
jaws, but give an impression of moderate relative narrowness (linguo- 
labially). The M3 is slightly smaller (both shorter and narrower ) 
than either Mr or M2. The lower border presents a marked broad 
flattening, which extends to below P2, for the attachment of the 
digastrics. There are on the right three (instead of the usual one) 
mental foramina, all located beneath the M1. Lingually the frontal 
part of the jaw shows traces of the transverse epimedian dull ridge 
and also of the vertical symphyseal one, with a shallow depression 
on each side above and another larger beneath—the same formation 
as seen in the other jaws where these parts are preserved. The sub- 
maxillary gland fossa is V shaped, deep, spacious. 

Measurements : cm. 
PAPE re NES MIDI SIS «so. scr Acie ste aherhevna en eee eens 4 MRM siess.S)6e eect 305 
eimai e Mitre end ve he area Rr ene ete 
PIES eeciE (SYRUP SIS, <2 Sut e's aden dak eile Bank 6 ecg levees biter es ies 
SNE ESS RAEN NM ace o's ek wees Aix yd ee Re CME aS ae settee adel’ BG 1.45 

Lower jaw H.—Powerful adult male jaw, with very typical and 
pronounced Krapina symphysis: straight, flat, receding and with a 

* The sex identifications are all by the writer. 


very small chin eminence; with a high, strong body; with a nearly 
U-shaped dental arch, broad in front and moderately diverging 
backwards; and with all 16 teeth, moderately worn, of about the size 
of those in very strong modern mandibles. The third molars are 
perceptibly smaller than the first and second. 

The lower border of the jaw is broadly and widely flattened for 
the marked insertions of the digastrics; it is a regular 15-16 mm. 
broad surface, extending laterally as far as the molar region. An- 
teriorly, in the middle, the border of this surface bends downward 
with a dull symphyseal protrusion, which gives to the inferior outline 
of the jaw a cupid’s-bow effect, recalling the similar but more pro- 
nounced feature in the Mauer mandible. The lingual surface of the 
bone anteriorly shows only the faint epimedian dull ridge, with bilat- 
eral shallow depressions above and below, like that seen in the other 
Krapina jaws. The genial tubercles, as in the other jaws, are low 
and small, although not beyond the range of modern variation. The 
mental foramen at left is double, at right large single; both are 
located beneath the posterior parts of the first molars. 

Measurements : em. 
Herehtsatesyampliysisern ciocineicteleetersiorrerrctoreel ckeenexe ctor eloiete elatoheferonetiare 4.0 
Fei he at IDSA 5) cro \cucieses cxstehiors iavei suc taveve co ote wi chere atayelo ropes eres ener oreo tereete 3.35 
Mhickavesse ate Sy Mp ny SIS cusps er-peeslelcrers aicisveresevele  ovebocleiore s ehencesletcrcheletekeraiey lene 1.55 
dhiekness: at eMiar cine e aes een ini ee Eee ee 1.5 

Lower jaw J.—This is the best preserved of the Krapina mandibles, 
being damaged only at the posterior part of the left ramus. It is at the 
same time the largest of the jaws. It belonged to an adult male of 
probably somewhat advancing years. The specimen is marked by 
its size, breadth, and strength. Like the other Krapina jaws it has a 
flat, receding symphyseal portion without a chin. The medium broad 
and high rami are surmounted by strong coronoid processes, a well 
marked sigmoid notch, and stout, broad, flat, not entirely healthy 
condyles, especially on the right side. The surface of the condyles 
has been affected through arthritis. 

The left ramus, well preserved, measures 7.9 cm. in height 
(Hrdlicka’s method), 3.8 in minimum breath. The mandibular angle 
is close to 118°. The border of the angle is rounded, but not more than 
in modern skulls; it lacks, as in the other Krapina jaws, the simian 
aspect that it shows in the La Quina and La Chapelle mandibles. 
The inferior border is irregularly flattened for the large insertions 

2 All these heights are taken dorsally; lingually the height is often somewhat 


of the digastrics. The outline of the lower border, as in jaw H, is 
very distinctly cupid’s-bow shaped, owing to its arching and a marked 
lower symphyseal protuberance. 

The lingual surface, anteriorly, shows similar conditions as the 
other lower Krapina jaws. The mylohyoid ridge is very strong, and 
bifurcates as in the other Krapina jaws where it may be observed, 
one branch leading upwards, along the coronoid process, the other 
backwards to the mandibular foramen and the base of the condyle. 
In front of the vertical ridge is a large marked fossa, below the 
bifurcation is a spacious pronounced hollow for the internal pterygoid 
muscle. The mandibular foramina are situated high, as also in the 
other Krapina specimens, and are large. The mental foramina (single 
on the right, double on left), are located below the rear part of Ms fT. 
The dental arch is nearly U-shaped, with the branches moderately di- 
verging. There are still present 13 teeth. The teeth are large, mega- 
dont, and this effect is further increased by the tartar concretions. 
The M 3 is smaller than M 2. There isa relatively wide space between 
the last molars and the anterior coronoid border. 

In all these characters, except in the coronoid prolongation of the 
mylohyoid ridge, the jaws differ more or less from modern ones, 
but approach closely those of La Chapelle and other early mandibulae. 

The condyles (altered through arthritis) measured r. 29.5, I. 
28.8 mm. transversely ; and r. 16.5, l. 15 mm. antero-posteriorly. 

Additional Measurements : cm. 
Height at symphysis...........+.:ececeeeee seer eeececeeeees 4.23 
le ip inte stg ee eto win vicoints asi + wreisiets ore ales Wieimye pais cfeiminahalevein sie 3122 
Thickness at symphysis..........seeeeeeeee ee eeeeeeeeseeees 1.5 
FI teI IESG UAL NI) clon: « s sic' Stine + 0g cen s oiteis sities «leele eee Sayers ? 
Breadth of the ramus, Min......... cece eee eee eee e eee Bu 
Bicondylat diam... 6.5. csc ce eee e eee scree nee secnen 14.8 (cast) 
Bigonial diam. approx..........-+-sceceereseBeoreecceseees 11.2 (cast) 

Lower jaw No. 16.—This is not described in Gorjanovi¢-Kram- 
berger’s Memoir. The specimen consists of the right ramus with a 
portion of the right body enclosing a damaged third molar. Evidently 
part of the jaw of an adult female. 

At first sight the specimen looks much like a portion of a modern 
lower jaw. The ascending ramus is 6.9 cm. high (from the mid-point 
connecting the uppermost parts of the condyle and the coronoid proc- 
ess to a point on the inferior border of the bone corresponding to 
the mid-line of the ramus) by 3.6 cm. broad. The mandibular angle is 
approximately 118°. The height of the ramus at the third molar is 


2.5 cm.; thickness 1.65. Transverse diameter of the condyle, 2.25; 
antero-posterior diameter, 1.3; maximum depth of notch, 1.15 cm.’ 

The mandibular angle is rounded but not more so than in some 
modern specimens. On the lingual side, however, the piece shows the 
typical characteristics of the Krapina and other early jaws, viz., the 
high mylohyoid ridge, bifurcating into marked vertical (coronoid ) 
and transverse ridges, the latter reaching the mandibular foramen 
and passing beyond it to end on the posterior border of the ramus; 
while beneath the mylohyoid ridge and its transverse prolongation 
there is a marked hollow for the internal pterygoid. 

Summary.—The highly interesting assemblage of the lower jaws 
of Krapina permits of certain generalizations. The bones present 
many marks of primitiveness. In these they resemble more or less 
the jaws of the western Neanderthalers ; in others they show features 
that connect with those of recent man. 

About the most distinguishing features of the Krapina jaws are the 
flattening, straightness, and recession of the incisor segment of the 
bone. In some of these jaws (H, E) these features are more striking 
than in any other early jaws; though the same characters in a some- 
what milder degree are shown also by the La Naulette, Sipka, and 
even Spy No. 1 mandibles. 

Other primitive characters are the size and stoutness of the bones; 
the megadont teeth; the multiplicity, size and backward location of 
the mental foramina; the flat inferior border; the ridges and de- 
pressions on the anterior portion of the lingual surface; the pro- 
nounced mylohyoid ridge with large submaxillary-gland fossa; the 
presence of a marked precoronoid fossa (between the anterior border 
of the coronoid and the internal coronoid ridge or root) ; the presence 
of a condyloid ridge or root (which after uniting with the coronoid 
forms a very strong mylohyoid ridge) ; and the large, much hollowed 
out depression for the internal pterygoid. In jaw J, there are added 
to this the enormous condyles. Other primitive features are the 
cupid’s-bow arching, in at least two of the jaws (H and J), of the 
inferior frontal portion of the bone; and the presence in J of a rela- 
tively wide space between M 3 and the anterior coronoid border. 

Features in which the Krapina jaws are more or less superior to 
some of the early jaws, especially the La Chapelle and Mauer, are: 
total absence of inferior frontal shelf; attenuation of the old and 
approach to more recent conditions on the frontal part of the lingual 

* All these measurements taken on a cast kindly furnished to the writer by 
Professor Gorjanovic-Kramberger. 


surface of the jaw; and a closer approach to modern conditions in 
the height and breadth of the ramus, in the mandibular angle and its 
border, in the sigmoid notch, and in the condyle (in some of the 
specimens ). 


In addition to the teeth contained in the Krapina maxillae and lower 
jaws, nearly 200 isolated teeth of all ages are included in the collec- 
tion. Thirty of this number are milk teeth. Gorjanovié-Kramberger 
devotes, in his principal memoir (1906), a large chapter to a detailed 
description and measurements of the teeth, pointing out many inter- 
esting details, both as to the crowns and as to the roots. From this 
and the writer’s own observations the following generalizations are 

The upper incisors are generally shovel-shaped, in addition to which 
they show from one to three lingual small cusps. The canines are 
of about modern macrodont size and form, but slightly higher than 
the incisors, and with distinct traces of a lingual shovel-shaped hollow, 
divided into two lateral fossae by a stout vertical ridge. The upper 
premolars approximate the canines with the labial canine cusp reduced 
and the lingual strongly developed. They, too, show the vertical 
median ridge on the lingual surface of the outer cusp, with a bilateral 
depression. The molars (23 upper, 26 lower) are all good-sized to 
large, and show numerous interesting details, both as to the confor- 
mation of the crowns and that of the roots. Some of these details are 
of primitive nature, though on the whole the teeth approach closely to 
those of present man. The Krapina third molars, while all large and 
well developed, show nevertheless as a rule a tendency toward slightly 
smaller dimensions than those of both the first and the second molars ; 
while the second molars are often a trace larger or at least broader 
than the first. The roots of all the teeth show considerable length 
as well as strength; and there is observable an inclination to greater 
multiplicity than in the teeth of the modern Europeans. 

Professor Gorjanovi¢-Kramberger’s measurements of the teeth 
are given on the following page.” 


The trunk.—Present, numerous more or less damaged vertebrae 
and parts of ribs. The spines represented by the vertebrae appear to 
have been somewhat weaker and the individual vertebrae smaller than 

2 For the writer’s measurements of the lower molars, see section on teeth. 



Tooth tengthe Canter Bieaden dings. Height teas 
posteriorly) labially) 
Milk Teeth: mm. mm. mm. mm. 
Upper Jaw 
[SD ercwerce eter a 8.39 10855 624, 1.2) ica.6:2) 1655 19.4 -19.55 
Lon weet 6.55- 6.7 6.2 6.5 — 6.8 19.15-19.6 
CAE Ro nto 7.6 — 8.4 6.4 - 7.3 6.6 — 8.0 19.9 -21.5 
IMT eae chekovoent 9.0 -10.0 7.6 —9.0 6.0 None 
IMD iene errs 8.75-10.6 LOLOe—Tiy 3 650! —/6),9) |ca.. 950) —17/.0 
Lower Jaw 
MTR teeta eee . 5.9 4.8 5.0 19.0 
ROTA exer ciatcists 5.6 4.5 site’ 18.0 
IMriyeeneaie rs 9.6 8.0 EO 18.0 
NID) cee ete LOZOP—U1e 2 Sa lOmE 504 1086 14.0 -16.55 
Permanent Teeth: 
Upper Jaw 
Digatenrs so ere 9.9 -10.4 S20) 889 MOS) WSS |) esos 
ID Yy cantare Ska 9.0 Dre S54) (dit yeas 
(2 jive). ace [8.2 6.0 Siailig | thay eae 
Cie seen 9.0 OCLSE SOL SR) ues WN Bodo 
Per orate ctoteser 8.0 — 8.5 10.5 -II.5 MONSON Oot) — | padee 
Mat eer 10.0 11.6 EDV OMS A NT) cree 
Noe ae arenas ARES 123 75S HOy leit he era 
INIia eee sewers et T2h2 12.0 GOs 7ONl) eae 
Lower Jaw 
Cree estas 7.55- 8.2 8.2 =10.0;)) 0 12.3 —9As Ory win 
PSPITe rs eA miss 8.1 8.5 TOV ie Ta MN La teeerr 
Leos ete 8.35 9.55 Tea Oa DN PAS ESE 
Mt : 13.4 12.4 7S E ORO S beh ets 
he ere i 12.4 10.8 Ge Sure a haededs 
Moat cae Ape e tw ud@e Zi EDT 10.3) -1T.0 G6 2.6 BO i hens Uyctae 
Permanent Teeth: 
Upper Jaw 
Tk; Sins State 10.0 -II.0 9.4 Ta a0 28.0 -32.0 
Loy, Noe ee 755-329 8.6 - 9.5 6.0 -I11.0 | 27.0 -30.9 
CF iene eon g.2 -10.5 10.0 -II.3 10.7 +x 32.7 -36.0 
Ps, ag eens S2Or— 82251) ILEs5—lre4: 820s Om 230) 28.25 
IMI eesccrenne I1l.0 —13.3 12.5 -13.35 20.0 —24.6 
Mow secre 10.0 —12.0 II.2 —14.0 t 21.0 -25.0 
IMac Severus 1(0),,(0) 101572 12.5 Aisa 24.0 
Lower Jaw 
Titec enicae 6.2 8.1 10.2 26.0 
Qe arn ere ete Teas 8.2 10.0 26.5 
Chittne seen 8.0 — 8.4 |c. 10.0 13.4 ahe2 
Bay tener gee TOR OHS 9.0 -10.0 8.6 —9.0] 23.7 -27.0 
Poe the comers 8.5 9.9 8.0 25.9 
IMT ewe to enatene lg) Nhat) 10.5 -12.4 6.5 - 9.4 19.3 -26.4 
IMi2ie is i rnsiene Dla h25 10.6 —-II.4 6.8 -— 7.5 19.9 —21.0 
IVE ace he iets: ots LE 1 —13-6 10.0 —II.0 ig huarate 21.0 —24.5 


those of the present Europeans; but it is quite probable that the 
bones present are predominantly those of females. The ribs appear 
to have been more open, and are somewhat stouter or rounder in 
cross section than those of present Europeans. A number of the 
vertebrae show signs of arthritis (of probably senile origin). 

More in detail, the cervical vertebrae, as far as preserved, are not 
very robust and show a marked shortening of the anterior portions 
of their bodies, which would seem to indicate that the neck was 
somewhat arched backward; but the material is not ample enough 
for valid generalizations. The lesser curvature of the ribs indicates 
deeper chests ; while the rounder form of the rib bodies is a primitive 

The clavicles.—Present, 11 right and to left bones, from individuals 
of different ages. The adult bones are in general slender, none of 
them reaching the strength of those of the Neanderthal or Spy speci- 
mens. They show a marked torsion in their distal half, more marked 
than in modern clavicles. There are marked differences in strength 
between the right and the left bones, the left being considerably 

In form most of the Krapina clavicles are flattened, but in one of 
the well preserved adult bones the shaft is distinctly stouter than in the 
others. The latter clavicle deserves a special notice. It is evidently 
a female bone, 14.9 cm. long, with a marked q flexion. It is of about 
medium female strength, though relatively to its considerable length 
(for a female) it appears slender. The most peculiar features of the 
bone are at its distal extremity, which is remarkably thick but narrow, 
looking but little like the average flattened extremity of the modern 
clavicle. The end, very stubby, looks as if the epiphyseal cap may be 
missing. Inferiorly there is a very pronounced and long trapezoid 
ridge reaching to the conoid tubercle, which reversely is but slightly 
developed. The other clavicles, all more or less damaged, show varied 

The scapulae—Present, 12 fragments. In general the bones were 
evidently much like those of modern man, nevertheless there are some 
interesting differences in detail. Regrettably the small number of the 
specimens and their defective state permits of but little valid generali- 
zation. Professor Gorjanovit-Kramberger has recently (1927) pub- 
lished a very detailed study of these bones, with many comparisons. 

The humeri.—Fragments of eleven right and eight left bones ; three 
of the nineteen specimens belong to children. No head of the bone 
has been found, what remains being usually the lower ends with a 


portion of the shaft. The longest piece comprises the lower two 
thirds of the bone. It is plainly the left bone of a nearly-adult female. 
The shaft is of about medium female strength, and the whole bone is 
much like some modern humeri. The shaft approaches type I (pris- 
matic) in shape at the middle, becoming regularly prismatic in the 
lower third. The deltoid eminence is very moderate, the semi-circular 
canal very shallow. The lower extremity shows a pronounced de- 
velopment of the mesial condyle, one of the few features in which 
the bone differs from the modern. The condyle is not merely promi- 
nent but also stout, with a large facet for the teres and flexor muscles. 
There is a very large perforation of the septum; and the olecranon 
fossa is distinctly more spacious and deep than it is in modern humeri. 
The articular facets fall well within the range of their variation in 
modern bones. 

Dimensions at middle, 2.0 x 1.5 cm. ; index, 75.0. 

The lower third of another left humerus is also fairly well pre- 
served. This may have been the humerus of another female, though 
this is not certain. The shaft is slightly broader but a trace less high 
than that of the previous bone; it is equally prismatic (lower third). 
The bone comes from a fully adult subject. There is no perforation 
of the septum. The mesial condyle is again markedly developed, even 
slightly more so than in the first bone, and is equally stout. The 
olecranon fossa is large and deep. The articular surfaces resemble 
fairly those in modern bones. The maximum breadth of the lowest 
end is 6.7 cm., which is rather large, but this is due in an important 
measure to the overdevelopment of the mesial condyle. Without this 
condyle the lower end looks feminine. 

A third specimen, also the lower third, is stronger than the two 
previous, is apparently masculine, and differs from both the preceding 
in the absence of the highly developed mesial condyle, the part being 
developed much as it is in modern bones. The olecranon fossa is once 
more very large and deep, the coronoid shallow. There is a small 
perforation of the septum. 

The radiii—Present, fragments. The best of these is evidently 
an adult bone, of originally fair length, of moderate strength, and of 
but moderate curvature, differing in the latter respect from the usually 
much arched western Neanderthal radii. There are in addition parts 
of seven right and three left bones. All are slender, some at least 
being plainly feminine. In form they are close to those of recent man, 
except in the uppermost portion (tuberosity, neck and head), where 
some differences are observable. The tuberosity appears, in some 


specimens at least, to be located somewhat more inward and backward 
than in recent man, and the neck in the Krapina bones appears to be 
somewhat longer and more slender than it is in present Europeans. 

The ulnae.—Present, 11 fragments. These bones, too, are rela- 
tively slender. They are not very different from modern bones of 
similar strength except in the upper articular facet for the radius, 
which is of a somewhat different shape (especially narrower from the 
front backward) ; in the basal portion of the sigmoid cavity, which 
is shallower than in modern bones; in the muscular impressions about 
the head which are more pronounced than in modern bones of similar 
strength; and in the top part of the olecranon process which is 
decidedly larger in the Krapina as in other Neanderthal ulnae, es- 
pecially in its antero-posterior direction, than in modern man. One 
of the bones shows advanced arthritis. 

Bones of the hands——Those that remain are in general much like 
those of present man, though differing in some details in which the 
Krapina bones show generally more primitiveness. 

The pelves—The nine pieces present resemble closely remains of 
later man, but are too defective for any important conclusions. The 
largest remaining piece, comprising most of the left ischium with 
a large portion of the ilium, is from a male adult and shows about 
medium masculine proportions. 

The femora.—Present, numerous fragments, clearly intentionally 
broken for the marrow ; among them were two left upper ends with 
a portion of the shaft, one male, one female. Both of the large pieces 
approach in general similar parts of the femora of today; though 
there are also some differences. Neither of the bones shows the 
stocky head and neck of the Neanderthal and the Spy femora, being 
much more comparable to the bones of today; nor do any of the 
fragments indicate a marked forward arching of the whole shaft, 
such as is present in the western Neanderthalers—in fact, what is 
preserved would indicate that the shaft was fairly straight. 

The male bone shows very little that could not be duplicated in a 
modern strong male femur. It has a pronounced third trochanter 
in the form of a ridge reaching from the level of the lower part of 
the trochanter minor to and over the lower fourth of the trochanter 
major; this, too, can be found in modern bones. The subtrochanteric 
flattening is moderate, though better marked than in the majority of 
the Neanderthal femora (diam. max., 3.7 ; diam. min., 2.6 cm. ; Index, 
70.3). The walls of the bone are very thick, especially antero-mesially 
(close to 10 mm.) ; the medullary canal on the other hand is very 


moderate. The digital fossa, the posterior slope of the neck, the 
trochanter minor, are all in size and situation close to some at least 
of those in modern femora of similar proportions ; though the digital 
fossa is somewhat more spacious than in most modern femora. The 
set of large vascular foramina anterior to the intertrochanteric ridge 
is much the same, even to some details, as in modern man. 

The female bone also resembles closely that of a modern female 
of similar size, but there are a few differences. The mesial part of 
the upper portion of the great trochanter in the Krapina bone shows 
a distinct and large semilunar surface for the attachment of the 
obturator. The digital fossa is somewhat more spacious, though not 
deeper, than in modern bones. The basal part of the posterior surface 
of the neck including the intertrochanteric line is widely and fairly 
deeply concave, which is less marked in the preceding male Krapina 
femur, and still less in modern bones. There is again a marked and 
long ridge in place of the third trochanter, which reaches in this bone 
about 3 cm. below the level of the trochanter minor, where it unites 
with the less marked pectineal ridge proceeding from the latter. The 
anterior surface of this bone is remarkably flat, the subtrochanteric 
flattening distinct though not excessive (diam. max., 3.0; diam. min. 
2.1 cm.; Index 70.0). The walls of the bone again are stout (ante- 
riorly and posteriorly), the medullary canal small. 

The tibiae.—Present, only small fragments of the shaft, with two 
of the lower extremity; these show dull borders, perhaps a slightly 
greater arching forward than in modern bones, with lower articular 
facet much like that of the Spy tibiae and correspondingly differing 
from that of present man. 

The fibulae—Present, pieces of eight right and six left bones, 
without upper ends and only one with the lower extremity. The best 
piece shows evidently a female right bone, of about medium female 
strength and of fair length. The shaft, flattened, shows five distinct 
borders and surfaces, without any fluting except in the upper third 
of the external surface. The shape and other characteristics of the 
bone can be duplicated in modern female fibulae. 

The patellae.—Present, 15 specimens of different ages. In size and 
shape much like those of man of today. 

Measurements given by Professor Gorjanovic-Kramberger : 

Tenn ha i vaey sieves, aferers cal cusversye fel ale) eteia ie’ gn) efanetenhehavers ustedes cuanerane tatake 42.3—44.4 mm. 
Brea ely rsh fey wa tte te ies aietetetars mlcraionats ee rencteta suena tere ereltenedelterees 46.6—49.0 mm. 
THICKNESS He 2 spe tarere es lore cain are tate ote a eee char oot acteterel onshoehonete 23.2—24.0 mm. 


A male patella, of which the writer has obtained a cast from 
Professor Gorjanovic-Kramberger, has evidently not been included 
in the above. It measures (cast) : 

Bengt Meee eete eer We racer eet cl evar avacs, ¥'s\e\e a6 a’eiae diateieob.s oo skaters Sine Biele’s 46.0 mm. 
SCAMMER era TAS RENCE Rare rete era aiisc os ciewh ies bos Xess we helo leidramaelocte sree 50.0 mm. 
SIRE tes SmmmeR eT Te Ce tae are oie tarereic isd oo ore eel eaievereusvomtbale walormialcistoters 24.5 mm. 

The calcaneus——Present, a portion of one adult bone only. The 
articular facets show a primitive condition. 

The astragali.—Present, two whole left bones and seven fragments, 
all showing similar characteristics. As in the other Neanderthal astrag- 
ali, these bones are marked by their relative shortness, and especially 
by the shortness of the neck; by a marked depression superiorly 
between the head and the tibial facet; by a relatively large develop- 
ment of the sustentaculum ; and by some peculiarities of the articular 

Bones of the feet.—Present, numerous isolated specimens represent- 
ing different parts of the foot. They all come, in general, close to 
those of the modern man; yet they differ here and there in particulars 
which as a rule are of more primitive nature. Gorjanovi¢-Kramberger 
gives very detailed descriptions of all these parts with measurements. 
Although the tarsal bones are in some respects especially primitive, 
nevertheless a transition to the forms of recent man is everywhere 


Notwithstanding their defective condition, the numerous fragments 
of the Krapina skulls show clearly that the crania they represent 
belonged in general to the Neanderthal phase of early man. Many 
of the distinguishing characteristics of the latter are here repeated— 
the supraorbital torus, the sloping forehead, the peculiar occipital, 
the planes of the orbits, the stout nasal and malar processes, the 
effects of powerful masticatory apparatus, a relatively lower position 
of the zygomatic arches, small mastoids, and other features. 

All these features present, however, a considerable variation, and 
that of a rather progressive tendency. Thus some of the foreheads 
approach closely those of some recent men; even the vault of these 

* Gorjanovi¢-Kramberger, K., Der diluviale Mensch von Krapina in Kroatien. 
Wiesbaden, 1906. “ Bei allen den erwahnten Abweichungen der einzelnen Ele- 
mente der unteren Gliedmassen sehen wir dennoch schon den Typus des rezenten 
Menschen ausgepragt, oder mit anderen Worten, wir finden das allmahliche 
Ubergehen jener primitiveren Charaktere in die nun bestehenden des Europaers 
deutlich ausgesprochen.” 



(‘dos 1oquiery-1Aoue [105 
Joujy) ‘aAoqe WojZ uses se CJ [[MYS Jo aurpyno ‘gq ! aaoqe Woasy udas se D TAs Jo ouryyng ‘e—oz ‘ory 


1. General view of the Krapinica valley. 

BEER TO a oe Soo gts 
Se Son ae 

The Krapina rock-shelter, before excavations were finished. (Photograph given 
Hrdlicka by Gorjanovic-Kramberger. ) 


(daadsoquery-graouel4oy Jayy) oD, IPAS euldel yy 


(‘qaSsaquuesyy-p1AoueRlsor Joyy) “MIA apis .°D,, [MAIS euldelyy 




Krapina skull “ C. 


Krapina jaws, “D” (upper), “E” (middle), and “C” (lower). 
(After Gorjanovic-Kramberger. ) 


Krapina jaw “H.” (After Gorjanovi¢-Kramberger. ) 


Krapina jaw “N (After Gorjanovi¢-Kramberger. ) 



A number of the Krapina teeth, more or less enlarged. 

I, permanent median upper incisor from a small child; 1a, the same, greater enlargement; 
2, permanent upper canine, root not as yet fully developed; 3, permanent anterior lower premolar, 
right side; 3a, the same in greater enlargement; 4, permanent second(?) upper molar; 5, permanent 
lower left second molar; 6, permanent left lower first molar; 6a, the same much enlarged; 7, perma- 
nent upper median incisor, edge worn off; 8, ditto; 9, lateral upper permanent incisor; 10, ditto; 
rr, a third permanent molar; 11a, the same in greater enlargement; 12, the left lower permanent 
second molar; 12a, the same much more enlarged; 13, the right permanent second molar; 13a, the 
same in greater enlargement; 14, a third permanent molar; 14a, the same in greater enlargement; 
15, a permanent third molar; 15a, the same. (From Gorjanovi¢-Kramberger, Mitth. Anthrop. Ges. 
Wien, Vol. 31.) 


Krapina humerus, radius, and ulna. (After Gorjanoyic Kramberger 


Upper, the male and female Krapina femora. 
Lower, Krapina astragalus. (All after Gorjanovi¢-Kramberger. ) 


skulls has differed individually, in height, in breadth and other char- 
acters ; and there is much of interest in this connection about the jaws 
and the teeth. 

Of particular interest is the evident disposition of the Krapina 
crania towards brachycephaly, which thus far has not been known 
in early skulls. There have been some objections to the restoration 
of these specimens; the prejudice that could readily be created thus 
would be unjustified. The pieces that compose skull C appear clearly 
to belong to that skull, and those of D fit too well to involve any 
serious errors. An independent examination of the Krapina remains 
leaves no doubt but that they represent skulls both broader and shorter 
than those of the western Neanderthalers. 

Gorjanovi¢-Kramberger’s opinion that more than one race of men 
is represented at Krapina cannot be sustained; the low jaws and 
weak bones are plainly those of females. 

Adding to the variations and peculiarities of the Krapina skulls, 
jaws, and teeth, those of the skeletons, and contrasting the whole 
with what is known of the corresponding parts in the western Nean- 
derthalers, it is plain that the Krapina man, while of the same general 
family, differs sufficiently to be regarded as a subtype which on the 
whole was morphologically somewhat more advanced towards later 
man. This is difficult to harmonize with a supposed greater age of 
the Krapina remains. Possibly he lived later than supposed, or he 
belonged to a more progressive group. 



Fiscuer, Euc. Die Variationen an Radius und Ulna des Menschen. Zeitschr. 
fiir Morphologie u. Anthropologie, Vol. 9, pp. 147-247, 1906. 

GorJANOVIC-KRAMBERGER, K. Der palaolithische Mensch und seine Zeitgenossen 
aus dem Diluvium von Krapina in Kroatien. Mitteilungen der anthrop. 
Gesellsch. in Wien (Sitzungsbericht), Vol. 29, 1880. 

— —. Der diluviale Mensch aus Krapina in Kroatien. Mitteil. der anthrop. 
Gesellsch. Wien, Vol. 30, 1900. Briefliche Mitteilung an Prof. Dr. Ranke, 
Korrespondenz-Bl. d. Deutsch. anthrop. Gesellsch., Nr. 3, 1900. 

Der palaolithische Mensch und seine Zeitgenossen aus dem Diluvium 

von Krapina in Kroatien. Mitteilungen der anthrop. Gesellsch. in Wien, 

Vol. 31, pp. 164-197, mit 4 Taf. u. 13 Textabb., Wien, 1901. 

Nachtrag als II. Teil—Ebenda, Vol. 32, pp. 189-216. Mit 4 Taf. u. 18 

Textabb., Wien, 1902 (pp. 194-200 mit Taf. II. Klaatschs Beitrag tiber das 

Occipitale ). 

* Mainly after Gorjanovic-Kramberger. 



GorJANOVIC-KRAMBERGER, K. Zweiter Nachtrag als III. Teil—Ebenda, Vol. 
34, pp. 187-199. Mit 3 Taf. u. 9 Textabb., Wien, 1904. 

Dritter Nachtrag als IV. Teil—Ebenda, Vol. 35, pp. 197-229. Mit 

3 Taf. u. 13 Textabb., Wien, 1905. 

Neuer Beitrag zur Osteologie des Homo Krapinensis. Verhandl. d. 

Gesellsch. deutsch. Naturf. u. Arzte. 75. Versamml, zu Kassel, II Teil, 

p. 219, 1903. 

Die Variationen am Skelette des altdiluvialen Menschen. Glasnik 

hrvatskoga prirod. drustva. Zagreb (Agram), Vol. 16, 1904. 

Potjece li moderni clovjek ravno od diluvijalnag 0 Homo primigeniusa ? 

(Stammt der moderne Mensch direkt vom diluvialen H. primigenius her ?) 

Vortrag gehalten am I. Kongresse der serbischen Naturf. u. Arzte. Belgrad, 


Homo primigenius aus dem Diluvium von Krapina in Kroatien und des- 
sen Industrie. (Nach den Ausgrabungen im Sommer des Jahres 1905.) 
Korrespondenz-Bl. d. deutsch. anthrop. Gesellsch., Nr. 10. Bericht d. IV. 
gemeins. Versamml. d. deutsch. u. Wiener anthrop. Gesellsch. in Salzburg, 


Der diluviale Mensch von Krapina und sein Verhaltnis zum Menschen 
vom Neanderthal und Spy. Biologisches Zentralblatt, Vol. 25, Nr. 23 u. 24, 

Der Unterkiefer von Ochos aus Mahren und sein Verhaltnis zu den 
Unterkiefern des Homo primigenius. Glasnik hrvatskoga prirod. drustva. 
Zagreb (Agram), Vol. 18, 1906. 

Zur Frage der Existenz des Homo aurignacensis in Krapina. Ber. 

geol. Kommis. Kroat. u. Slavon., pp. 5-8, Zagreb, Croat., 1910. 

Das Kiefergelenk des diluvialen Menschen von Krapina in Kroatien. 

23 pp., 14 fig., Zagreb, Croat., 1914. 

Der Axillarrand des Schulterblattes des Menschen von Krapina. Bull. 

Croat. Ass. Nat. Hist., Vol. 26, 27 pp., 18 figs., 1914. 

Neue Beitrage zum Kiefergelenk des diluvialen Menschen von Krapina. 
Bull. Yugosl. Acad. Sci. and Arts, pp. 118-145, 1 pl., 15 figs., Zagreb, Croat., 
1923-1924. Nachtrag, in “ Rad,” Vol. 232, 12 pp., 6 figs., 1925. 

-——. Das Schulterblatt des diluvialen Menschen von Krapina in seinem 
Verhialtniss zu dem Schulterblatt des rezenten Menschen und der Affen. 
Bull. Inst. Geol. Zagreb, pp. 67-122, 4 pl., 17 figs., 1927. 

(Additional references in these publications. ) 
See also the Anniversary Volume, published in honor of K. Gorjanovic- 
Kramberger, Zagreb, Croat, 1925-1926. 

Kraatscu, H. Bericht ttber den neuen Fund von Knochenresten des altdilu- 
vialen Menschen von Krapina in Kroatien. Zeitschr. d. deutsch. geol. 
Gesellsch., pp. 44-46, 1901. 

—-, Uber die Occipitalia und Temporalia der Schadel von Spy, verglichen 
mit denen von Krapina. Zeitschr. f. Ethnol., 1902. 

Entstehung und Entwickelung des Menschengeschlechtes. H. Kramers 

Weltall und Menschheit, Vol. 2, Berlin, 1902. 

Die Fortschritte der Lehre von den fossilen Knochenresten des Men- 
schen in den Jahren 1900-1903. Ergebnisse d. Anatomie u. Entwickelungs- 
gesch. von Merkel u. Bonnet, Vol. 12, Wiesbaden, 1902. 

Scutosser, M. Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Saugetierreste aus den stiddeutschen 
Bohnerzen. Geol. u. palaontol, Abhandl., p. 8, Jena, 1902. 


ScHuwa se, G. Die Vorgeschichte des Menschen. Braunschweig, 1904. 

Studien zur Vorgeschichte des Menschen. Stuttgart, 1906. 

De Terra, Max. Mitteilungen zum Krapina-Fund unter besonderer Bertuck- 
sichtigung der Zahne. Schweizerische Vierteljahrsschr. f. Zahnheilkunde, 
Vol. 13, Zurich, 1903. 

Beitrage zu einer Odontographie der Menschenrassen. Zurich, 1905. 

Totpt, C. Uber die Kinnknochelchen und ihre Bedeutung fur die Kinnbildung 
beim Menschen. Korrespondenz-Bl. d. deutsch. anthrop. Gesellsch., Nr. 10, 

Watkuorr, O. Der Unterkiefer der Anthropomorphen und des Menschen in 
seiner funktionellen Entwickelung und Gestalt; Menschenaffen. Studien 
iiber Entwickelung und Schadelbau von Selenka IV, Wiesbaden, 1902; 
VI, Wiesbaden, 1903. 

Einige odontologische Ergebnisse fur die Anthropologie. Osterr.-ungar. 

Vierteljahrschr. f. Zahnheilkunde, Wien, 1902. 


GoryANovic-Krambercer, K. Zur Altersfrage der diluvialen Lagerstatte von 
Krapina in Kroatien. Glasnik hrvatskoga prirod. drustva, Vols. 16, 17, 
3 Teil., 1905. 

— —. Korrespondenz-Bl. d. deutschen anthrop. Gesellsch., Nr. 10, 1905. 

Hornes, M. Der diluviale Mensch in Europa. Braunschweig, 1903. 

Oxsermater, H. La station paléolithique de Krapina. L’Anthropologie, Vol. 16, 

Rutot, A. Le decouvertes de Krapina (Croatie). Bulletin de la Soc. d’Anthrop. 
de Bruxelles, Vol. 22, 1903. 

——.—. Memoires de la Soc. d’Anthrop. de Bruxelles, Vol. 22. 

Le préhistorique dans l'Europe centrale. Coup d’oeil sur V’état des 

connaissances relatives aux industries de la pierre en 1903, p. 216, Namur, 


Sur les gisements paléolithiques du Loess éolien d’Autriche-Hongrie. 
Bruxelles, 1904. 
Encore homme de Krapina. Bulletin de la Soc. d’Anthrop. de Brux- 
elles, Vol. 23, p. 19, 1904. 
See also the various textbooks on Prehistory (though they contain but little 
detail and nothing original). : 


The little village of Ehringsdorf, in the Im valley, 3 km. from 
Weimar and about the same from Taubach, has become quite famous 
within the last two decades, on the one hand for its travertin quarries, 
which yield a very pure limestone (travertin), and on the other hand 
for the highly interesting animal and human remains that for many 
years have come to light and that are still appearing in these quarries. 

The travertin deposits, of diluvial origin, extend from Weimar to 
beyond Ehringsdorf. At the latter place they are found in a low 
broad hill, on the slope of which the village is situated. For many 
years now, a part of the hill facing the moderate valley of the small 


Ilm river has been blasted away for the limestone, the works being 
known as Kaempfer’s Quarry. Herr Kaempfer, an educated man, 
was in fact still the owner of it during the writer’s visits (1921, 1923), 
and is largely to be credited for the intelligent preservation of the 
paleontological as well as the human remains from his extensive 

By 1914, the quarry reached the condition shown in plate 57. The 
exposed rocky wall approximated 4o feet in height and showed gross 
horizontal stratification. A little below the middle could be seen a 
belt about three feet thick known as the “ Pariser,” a largely consoli- 
dated loess formation; and beneath this, in the left part of the 
quarry, the writer was shown the remains of a flat pocket of more 
or less consolidated looser material in which stone implements had 
been discovered, with numerous evidences of human occupation. 

It was in this layer or pocket, which lay about Io feet below the 
“ Pariser,” that workmen began in April, 1914, to discover various 
fossil animal bones and some worked flints; and it was here that, 
on May 8, 1914, following a blast, there appeared, besides some animal 
bones, fragments of an adult human lower jaw. The bone had been 
both freed and partly shattered by the blast. In its vicinity were bones 
of various Quaternary animals, later identified as Rhinoceros mercku, 
cave bear, a Bos, a horse and a deer; also some bones that had been 
partly burned, some charcoal, and numerous flints showing human 

The value of the find was, fortunately, promptly recognized, and 
the pieces of the jaw were most carefully gathered by Herr Haubold, 
the overseer, with the aid of Herr Lindig, the able Curator of the 
Weimar City Museum. The specimen was then most painstakingly 
repaired by Herr Lindig, and not long after turned over to Gustav 
Schwalbe for study. It is briefly described and pictured by the latter 
in October of the same year;* and not long after the specimen is 
referred to by MacCurdy.’ Basing his opinion on its form and asso- 
ciations, Schwalbe considered the specimen to be a very valuable 
one, and referred it to the earlier period of Neanderthal man. 

1The writer is indebted to Herr Kaempfer for his courteous permission to 
examine the site and local collections, and for two valuable photographs of the 

* Schwalbe, G., Uber einen in Ehringsdorf bei Weimar gemachten Fund des 
Urmenschen. Correspondenz-Bl. allg. arztl. Ver. Thuringen, 3 pp., 1914. 

Uber einen bei Ehringsdorf in der Nahe von Weimar gefundenen Unterkiefer 
des Homo primigenius. Anat. Anzeiger., Vol. 47, pp. 337-345, 1914. 

® MacCurdy, G. G., Interglacial Man from Ehringsdorf near Weimar. Amer. 
Anthrop., Vol. 18, No. I, pp. 139-142, 1915. 


After Schwalbe’s death a more complete study of the jaw was 
undertaken by Hans Virchow, and its description forms the main 
part of his masterly memoir on the human skeletal remains of Ehr- 
ingsdorf." While Virchow was engaged in the study, however, there 
came to light, on November 2, 1916, under similar circumstances and 
from about the same horizon but about 80 feet to the right and 
enclosed in rock, portions of the skeleton of a child about 10 years old. 
The specimen was badly damaged through the blast, but thanks once 
more to the most careful efforts of the quarrymen and Herr Lindig, 
all that could possibly be saved was secured and taken to the Weimar 
Museum. The parts consisted of six right and five left ribs, two 
vertebrae, the epistropheus, the right pelvic bone, half of the right 
humerus, incomplete lower jaw, and five teeth from the maxilla. The 
thoracic parts lie in a block of the stone and were found, with the rest 
of the defective parts of the skeleton, to be of but secondary scientific 
importance ; but the lower jaw with its nine well preserved teeth was 
a document of value, and as such, was submitted also to Hans Vir- 
chow and is described in his Memoir with the adult mandible. 

In addition to the preceding, several other finds of human remains 
were made in Fischer’s quarry, lying immediately behind Kaempfer’s 
workings. They include a number of fine stone implements and two 
pieces of a human parietal; they were, like the child’s skeleton, 
enclosed in the solid rock. About 1922, in the right part of Kaemp- 
fer’s quarry, a blast in the travertin above its middle revealed, the 
writer was told, a portion of a human femur. Fossil animal bones 
and worked flints were found on numerous occasions. On September 
21, 1925, finally, a blast in the lower travertin of Fischer’s quarry, 
in a block 55 feet (16.7 m.) from the surface, brought to light pieces 
of a young adult human skull. Of these additional human skeletal 
remains the skull, after a most painstaking disengagement from the 
rock and reconstruction, has been thoroughly studied and published 
on by Weidenreich.’ 

Geology.—The travertin or calcareous tufa deposits of the Ilm 
valley are found in three isolated nearby units, one at Weimar (left 

*Virchow, H., Die menschlichen Skeletreste aus dem Kampfe-schen Bruch 
im Travertin von Ehringsdorf bei Weimar, 141 pp., 8 pls., 41 figs., Jena, 1920. 

? Weidenreich, Franz. Der Schadelfund yon Weimar-Ehringsdorf. Contains a 
section on the Geology of the deposits by F. Wiegers, and a section on the 
Ehringsdorf culture by E. Schuster, 204 pp., numerous illustrations, G. Fischer, 
Jena, 1928. 


bank), the second at Ehringsdorf (left bank), and the third at Tau- 
bach (right bank). They are evidently intercalates formed during the 
latter half of the diluvial times in so many depressions. 

The Ehringsdorf unit is about 1,260 m. (over 3 mile) long by, 
at maximum, 400 m, (437 yards) broad, and from approximately 
40 to over 60 fect thick. It reposes on meadow marl (13 to over 3 
ft. thick), beneath which is found a bed of river gravel (3 to Io ft.) ; 
and its surface was covered by a substantial layer of humus. 

The rock shows in general a considerable horizontal stratification ; 
this, in Kaempfer’s quarry, showed according to Pfeiffer (1917) the 
following : 

From Above: 

Layer Meters! 
II 0.70-1.20 | Humus. 
10a ala Sandy loam. 
10 eeyene The ‘‘wild layer’’ of the workmen; clay with small em- 
bedded pieces of limestone. 

9 0.90 The ‘black bank’ of the workmen, gives good stone; 
poor in bones; no artifacts. 

8 2.50 Thin layers of limestone, with blackish strips of probably 
humus origin; no bones or flints. 

7 iO ‘‘Pariser’’—a more or less consolidated formation that 
evidently consisted originally largely of loess. Few 
bones, some teeth of rodents, some shells of land snails. 
Flints scarce and unworked. 

6 2.90 Group of three limestone banks, differing somewhat in 
color and density. A few artifacts and bones of animals. 

5 0.30-1.0 Sandy tufa. The principal layer containing human re- 
mains as well as those of animals. The majority of the 
finds at Ehringsdorf, including both of the lower jaws 
and the child’s skeleton, proceed from this layer. 

4 2.60 The best quarry stone. 

3a ited Creviced and vacuolated stone; has yielded beaver teeth, 
eggs of the wild duck, and bones of some birds. 

3 0.15 Pulverulent travertin, diluvial sand; poor in bones and 
artifacts, rich in snail shells (at Taubach the main 
stratum of bones and implements). 

2 0.20-0.90 | Meadow marl. Uppermost portion with lowest part of 
3 gave a tooth of a mammoth. 

I Up to 3.0 | Diluvial gravels, with isolated flints, with occasional 

teeth of the mammoth and Rhinoceros tichorhinus 
(Corgel, 1924). 

1t m. (39.37 in.). 

The origin of travertin units at and near Weimar has been ascribed 
since the time of Voigt (1781) to precipitation of lime from waters 


fed by mineral springs. The process of the building of the deposits 
was evidently very gradual, leaving an ample opportunity for human 
habitation about the pools. The German geologists ascribe the lower 
layers of the travertin to the last (Riss-Wurm) interglacial; the 
upper limestone layers are doubtless more recent. 

Fauna.—The most comprehensive details as to the fauna (and also 
the rather abundant flora) of the Ehringsdorf and neighboring traver- 
tin deposits, are given, largely after Soergel,’ by F. Wiegers (1928). 
From these it is seen that the fauna of the lower layers, beneath the 
“ Pariser,” differs somewhat from that of the strata above. The main 
mammalian forms in the two are as follows: 

Lower strata Upper strata 

Rhinoceros mercki. Dicerorhinus hemitoechus. 
Rhinoceros tichorhinus (in the under- — Rhinoceros tichorhinus. 

lying marl and gravel, Soergel).* 
IPS RAG RIMGUUS. Mee de OL * ie Oem fees Maha isele nes ac 
Mammoth (marl and gravel, to lowest 

limestone, Soergel ).* Mammoth. 
Bison priscus (Bison). Bison priscus. 
Bos primigenius (Auroch). Bos primigentus. 
Cervus elaphus (Stag). Cervus elaphus. 
Eaycul OL ena Pema PemIAIR | Picios a\sieps) aperelohsy stays 
GarpeeVeN LT GN, uh ale a eels renee eres 
ene areeRMeMET Df esi ehavauats eases pices 
Brown bear (U. arctos). © se tes e weet cees 
Canis lupus (Wolf), wet eee eee eee 
Canis vulpes (Fox), —§ «i. tet eet eee ee ee 
Ee iataisy ocs\eve ¢ aiaret ater Reindeer. 
Equus abeli (Wild Horse). weet eee tenes 
PPS OT TRS ier erauote eset Equus hemionus (Small Wild Ass). 
ay C1 ae et PM 90 CME S20 cVolevolel ellerstevs (ote) aie 
Lutra lutra (Fish Otter). Lutra lutra. 

Barteria acted borcVe «xe Putorius put. (Weasel). 
Sus scrofa ant. (Wild Boar). =«-_—_—— ewe eeeeceeeceere 
Cervus dama (Fallow Deer); = eww een eeeeeeeees 

Cervus megaceros germ. (Giant Stag). Cervus megaceros germ. (Giant Stag). 
Gerous aices (Bik)e fh AA eee 
Cervus capreolus (Roe-Buck). Cervus capreolus (Roe-Buck). 

Felis catus (Wild Gat). twine see seine oie 
els iver Cy). ir wine elena gt ent 
Meles meles (Badger). © weet teeter eeeeee 
Mustela martes (Marten). = wr ee ee ee eet eters 

?Soergel, W., Excursion ins Travertingebiet von Ehringsdorf. Paleont. Zeit- 
schr., pp. 7-33, 1926. 

*In the joint publication, Der Schadelfund von Weimar-Ehringsdorf, p. 18 
et seq., G. Fischer, Jena, 1928. 

* Tbid., p. 9. 

‘Close to if not identical with, Rhinoceros merckii; see ibid., p. 20. 


Industry.—The Ehringsdorf stone industry has been very carefully 
and ably studied by Erich Schuster.’ It shows relatively over a score 
of types in flint and local stones and, as with other early industries 
in Germany, is not very harmonious with industries of similar age in 
France. The artifacts differ in workmanship from relatively simple 
to very well shaped, and belong apparently to the Middle Paleolithic. 
A typological classification is as yet impracticable. Climatic conditions 
as well as most of the materials were different in Germany from 
those in France. German prehistory must largely reach its own order 
and chronology. Critical considerations of the case show that the 
period deserves the distinctive name of the “ Weimar Culture.” 
Exactly where it belongs must be left to further study. 


Thanks to Herr E. Lindig, Curator of the Stadtisches Museum, 
Weimar, where all the originals from Ehringsdorf are preserved, the 
writer has twice been able (1922, 1923) to examine the earlier 
originals from Ehringsdorf, namely the two lower jaws, the child 
skeleton, and the worked stones. If the writer’s own observations 
are here used rather than the very able report and detailed data of 
Hans Virchow, it is only to insure greater uniformity as well as 
originality in this work; but the student is urged to consult also the 
highly meritorious memoir previously mentioned. 


The Jaw is that of an adult of somewhat advanced years, judging 
by the condition of the teeth. The teeth show what the student of 
primitive people would call about medium wear, ranging in the differ- 
ent teeth from complete abrasion of the cusps as in the left M2 and 
the four premolars, to complete wear of the crown, as in the two 
remaining incisors. The jaw is of moderate size for an early jaw, 
and judging by the relative lowness of the body it belonged probably 
to a female. It is a remarkably primitive specimen in many respects, 
yet it shows already several prospective or advanced features. The 
dental part of the jaw is relatively long and narrow, approaching the 
form of a long U; the outline of the lingual contour of the bone 
itself is that of a regular, moderately narrow, dull cone. 

The teeth were 16 in number (14 remaining). They are of modern, 
somewhat macrodont type, but the molars are relatively rather narrow 

*Der Schadelfund von Weimar-Ehringsdorf, p. 141 et seq., 1928. 


(see the special section on teeth). The third molars are distinctly 
smaller than the first and second, particularly on the left where the 
tooth can only be characterized as diminutive. None of the other early 
jaws so far known shows the reduction of the M3 to such a degree. 
The roots of the incisors—all that remains of them—are somewhat 
wider antero-posteriorly than even in macrodont jaws of today. The 
canines and premolars, and the cusp foramen of Mr and M2, were 
very much as they are in jaws of corresponding strength in modern 

The bone, although not very massive, is distinctly stouter than a 
large majority of jaws of today, particularly those of females. The 
thickness of the ramus at M2, very nearly the same on the two sides, 
reaches 15 mm. The body was low, its height at M2 having probably 
not exceeded 28.5 mm. Anteriorly the jaw shows a recession, but one 
of a somewhat peculiar kind, and a marked dental prognathism. The 
part has been affected and somewhat altered by dental abscesses, yet 
the main conditions are quite discernible. 

Had it not been for the dental prognathism, the symphyseal region 
would have been only slightly receding from the vertical (with the 
jaw lying naturally). It was somewhat flattened anteriorly as are 
the Krapina jaws; and like some of these it has a distinct though 
small chin eminence. The inferior border of this portion shows 
a moderate cupid’s-bow outline, with a rather marked little beal 
in the middle, approaching thus again some of the early jaws. The 
mental foramina are single, unusually large, and situated on the 
left below the center, on the right below the posterior half of 
Mr. These are primitive features, much like those of the Krapina 
and other early mandibles. Between M3 and the anterior border of 
the coronoid processes there is seen a marked gap, yet another char- 
acteristic of early mandibles. 

The ascending rami show considerable flaring out, so that while 
the body of the jaw is narrow the intercoronoid and the intercondy- 
loid diameters were evidently rather large. The rami were relatively 
slender (in thickness), and there may have been a well-defined 
mandibular angle; but this region with the posterior and upper por- 
tions of the ramus are so damaged that nothing positive can be said 
about them. Inferiorly, from the midline to beneath the mental 
foramina on each side, the jaw is flattened and rather deeply im- 
pressed for the attachment of the digastric muscles—approaching the 
condition in other early jaws; further back, however, the border of 
the bone is dull, fairly slender and much like that in modern 



Lingually the body of the bone shows very interesting features. 
Beginning from above in the incisor and premolar region, the bone 
slants inward and downward, and a marked inclined shelf is formed 
that reaches, gradually diminishing, to the molar region. The lower 
border of this sheif, when looked at from below, constitutes a marked 
ridge that extends all along to behind the last molars ; and underneath 
this border is a distinct continuous groove extending bilaterally from 
the symphysis to considerably behind the M3, where it shallows out 
somewhat and merges with the pterygoid fossa of the ramus. There 
is no trace of a vertical symphyseal ridge or of any distinct anterior 
fossa above the epimedial ridge ; but below this ridge is a low triangu- 
lar elevation merging with that of the glenoid tubercles, which, in 
a measure, subdivides the submedial groove into left and right 
portions, with a somewhat more marked depression on each side of 
the median line. Such a complete epimedian ridge, with such a distinct 
and practically continuous submedian antero-posterior groove, is not 
equalled in any of the other ancient jaws, and is represented only in 
occasional traces in modern man. The epimedian ridge in the Ehrings- 
dorf specimen is directly, and without any mark of junction or 
interruption, continuous with the mylohyoid ridge. But little can be 
said about the lingual surface of the ramus; what there is may be 
duplicated in every particular in modern jaws. 

The prospective or advanced characters of the jaw are, therefore, 
its slight true symphyseal recession ; its distinct mental eminence ; the 
modern forms and in the main also the size of the teeth; the markedly 
diminished third molars ; and in general the characters of the ramus. 
Features in which, on the other hand, the jaw approaches those of 
apes, are especially the upper lingual shelf with the anterior submedial 
fossa below it ; the relative narrowness of the teeth; the general shape 
and relative dimensions of the body of the bone and the dental arch; 
and the flattening from side to side of the precanine region, this 
being a remnant of the early human and prehuman powerful de- 
velopment of the roots of the canines. 


The specimen is marked by its stoutness (thickness of body at 
M1, 16.5; at symphysis, 16 mm.) ; by its flat and moderately receding 
symphyseal region with a very slight but distinct chin eminence ; 
by a U-shaped dental arch; by the relatively narrow molars; and by 
a broad and high coronoid process. It was probably the jaw of a 
male child. 


The mental foramen is indistinct, the region having been damaged 
on the left, while on the right all of the bone posterior to Pmr is 
missing. The height of the body at the symphysis is 30 mm.; at M1, 
24mm. The height of the ramus (Hrdli¢ka’s method) is 5.5 cm.; 
breadth min., 3.7 cm. Lingually the anterior portion of the jaw shows 
a marked epimedian simian shelf, much as in the adult jaw. This 
shelf, however, is marked below by only a very moderate dull ridge 
beneath which is a fairly distinct submedial uniform fossa extending 
on each side up to Pmt, without any elevation for the genial tu- 
bercles. This fossa is rounded beneath by a fairly distinct border 
which is the lingual border of a flat and fairly uniformly broad 
inferior surface stretching up to behind Pmt, after which the lower 
border assumes a shape that is practically identical with the modern. 
The mylohyoid ridge is not yet very marked and does not unite with 
the epimedial anterior border, as it does in the adult jaw. 

The rami show a shallow notch, broad, stout and high coronoid 
processes, stout condyloid processes, a marked dorsal depression he- 
low and behind the coronoid ; while ventrally there is a stout coronoid 
“root,” with a trace only of the condyloid ridge, both uniting at 
about the level of the mandibular foramina (in ordinary position), 
and merging with the mylohyoid elevation. There is also a strongly 
marked fossa for the internal pterygoid. The angle of the ramus, 
still somewhat rounded and thus reminding of prehuman or early 
human conditions, is nevertheless already so formed that it can 
readily be duplicated in modern mandibles. The mandibular angle 
is much like that in modern jaws (approx., 122°). The ramus shows 
already a marked eversion, indicating a relatively broad (as compared 
to the body) bicoronoid and bicondyloid diameter—as in the adult. 
The jaw is a primitive specimen and approaches closely some of the 
Krapina mandibles. 

There are nine teeth, with the crown of the M2 visible still deep 
in its socket. The four incisors are completely erupted. They are 
relatively large—larger than in any modern jaws and stout antero- 
posteriorly. The right permanent canine (left lost) is nearing the 
completion of its eruption; it is much like the incisors, only stouter 
(linguo-labially). The right anterior premolar, crown erupted, is 
large with a high and stout labial cusp. The left second premolar, 
just showing, seems slightly less stout than Pmt, for its labial cusp 
is lower. Between the left Pmi and Mr is the still remaining 
posterior molar of the milk dentition. The M1, fully erupted, shows 
five cusps and a marked precuspidal fossa. 


Additional teeth.—In addition to the teeth in the lower jaw of 
the child’s skeleton, there are also present the two right upper incisors 
of the same subject. These incisors resemble much the correspond- 
ing teeth of Krapina. They are distinctly shovel-shaped, and present 
lingually from one (median I) to three (lateral I) marked small 


This piece is not described by Virchow. It is a large oblique frag- 
ment of the left parietal with large portions missing antero-superiorly 
and postero-inferiorly. It apparently proceeds from a juvenile, though 
hardly a child’s skull, is of moderate thickness (maximum, 8.5 mm.) 
and shows one important feature, which is a marked and nearly 
central parietal eminence, not dull, posterior and low down as in the 
Neanderthalers, but practically like that in modern man. 


This original, which the writer has not yet seen, has been described 
thoroughly by Professor Weidenreich. It is a specimen of uncommon 
importance, for it shows, as does Spy No. 2, transition from the 
Neanderthal to the modern form of skull. The specimen presents 
some of the distinctly Neanderthaloid characteristics, such as a 
complete and still rather heavy torus, and the somewhat protruding 
broad occiput, flattened from above and hollowed out below, typical 
of the Neanderthal crania. But with these inferior features there is 
a higher and well arched forehead, a higher vault, a better developed 
mastoid, a less heavy zygoma, and a parietal with a central rather than 
posterior, though still low situated, eminence. 

Weidenreich’s conclusions as to the skull, to the restoration of 
which he gave the most meticulous care, are as follows: * 

The skull, which came from the lower travertin of Fischer’s Quarry 
at Ehringsdorf, belonged to a young individual (between 18 and 30 
years of age), possibly a female [?]. Unmistakable dents on the 
frontal made partly by sharp, partly by dull stone implements, render 
it probable that the individual had been killed. The violence resulted 
also in breaks of the cranial bones and separation at sutures. The fact 
that the basal parts of the skull are missing, having apparently been 
broken away, lead to the conclusion that the skull was thus broken 

* Weidenreich, Franz, Die Morphologie des Schadels; in Der Schadelfund von 
Weimar-Ehringsdorf, p. 135, Jena, 1928. 

for the purpose of the extraction of the brain [cannibalism]. The 
damaged skull was apparently thrown into a pool of water and became 
enclosed in the forming limestone. After the drying up of the pool 
the bones evidently became separated in the still plastic mass and 
broken further. 

The skull possesses the following characteristics of the Neanderthal 
group: Complete supraorbital arches; protrusion of the glabella 
region [though the glabella itself was in a fairly well marked de- 
pression|; large intraorbital and upper facial breadth; Neander- 
thaloid occiput ; a shallow and broad (transversely) glenoid fossa, and 
primitiveness of some parts of the temporal bone. But it shows a 
well arched forehead and a strong filling out of the anterior portion 
of the vault, which characters raise it above the Homo primigenius 
group and into the palaeolithic forms of Homo sapiens. 

Together with the Galilee specimen and probably also with that of 
the Podkumok, the Ehringsdorf skull is to be ranged in an intermedi- 
‘ary group. At all events, the exceptionally large breadth of the fore- 
head and of the upper face characterize the Ehringsdorf man as a 
separate race which was characterized also by exceptional features of 
the lower jaw. Both the earlier found lower jaws belong to the same 
morphological type. None of the characteristics of the skull permits 
the supposition of any postmortem deformation. 

Professor Weidenreich gives also a table of approximate measure- 

ments reached by him on the reconstructed skull. They are as 
cm. cm. 

Wenethy: tmiascnge aoe Sc oi miss< s,s 19.6 Mirani trontalemeaxs erie sees 12.1 
Length glabella-inion ......... 19.2 Greatest breadth of the oc- 
Length nasion-inion .......... 18.4 Cipitalasquamal snes sees TO!5e 2) 
Greatest breadth) .....-..26--- 14.5 Calotte-height (above glabel- 
Cranialeindexs sieceise cciiec.c ss 74.0 la-inion line, projection).. 9.6 
Iriside em othierrievs croc) eis en terse 17.1 Calotte? mdex, 5.06)" alces tos 50.0 
siside sbreadthie wreeimcer ricci 13.45 Upper facial breadth........ 13's 
Inside or brain breadth-length Anterior interorbital breadth. 3.0 (7?) 

W8tGle> Cacti oid) Sec EI aS ee WetOhe EOSUIL Capacity) 640%. 0%> 1,450 cc. [?] 
Diamepeirontalemdidecs nels ia. 2s 013 


The writer’s examination of the Ehringsdorf originals, coupled 
with the study of the most recent skull and implements of which there 
are able descriptions, leads him to the following views : 

The originals in Weimar, and the plentiful fine illustrations of the 
artifacts in Schuster’s report (1928), show plainly, especially in the 


knives and scrapers, Mousterian affinities. But the long and other 
fine points, including the remarkable double-point, the drills, and 
other objects, suggest more advanced development. There is certainly 
nothing very primitive about the culture, though a few of the worked 
stones are rather crude or simple. 

Similarly with the human skeletal remains—they are certainly not 
more primitive than those of the Neanderthalers. They are on the 
whole less primitive, in fact, than the Neanderthal remains proper, 
or the La Chapelle, or Le Moustier, or the adult Gibraltar. The 
lower jaws come close to most of those of Krapina, and so do the 
two upper incisors as well as other teeth. The fauna also resembles 
in the main that of Krapina. The Krapina industry, in the main 
Mousterian, is also somewhat aberrant, though whether these aberra- 
tions are near those of Ehringsdorf is uncertain; both may be quite 
local and differing from each other. 

The presence of Rhinoceros mercku both at Ehringsdorf and 
Krapina is neither proof of contemporaneity of the two sites, nor 
that either of them is of greater antiquity than the French and Belgian 
Mousterian sites where this form has not been encountered. The 
presence of the remains of R. tichorhinus at a lower horizon, as 
reported by Soergel,’ shows that the older form (FR. mercku) sur- 
vived for some time at least after the coming or development of the 

The assumption of the German writers that the Ehringsdorf man, 
or at least he of the older strata, lived well into, if not throughout, 
the third (Riss-Wirm) interglacial, and a similar assumption about 
the Krapina man, while the other Neanderthal remains are usually 
believed to straddle, chronologically, the last or Wurm glaciation, 
seems incongruous and involves chronological, faunal, cultural, as 
well as somatological difficulties. The question arises whether the 
Ehringsdorf stratum could not be attributed to a warmer intermedi- 
ary period of the last glaciation itself, rather than to the preceding, 
supposedly long, interglacial period. The cultural and somatological 
evidence, at least, would seem to favor this conception. We strike 
here the well-known difficulty of harmonizing the Mousterian time, 
and especially its beginnings, with the current and especially the 
German geological-paleontological deductions as to the periods follow- 

+See Wiegers, in Der Schadelfund yon Weimar-Ehringsdorf, p. 9, last par., 

(‘Aaaenb ay} Jo JouMO Aq BYYpIF{ OF poyeuop ydeisojoyg) “‘punoy sem Mef JaMOT INpe 
dy} YOTYM Ul WIN}zeI4S sayeorpul YoO]q B UO SUIPURYS UR JO JYSII O} jyods a}yIyM VY 

‘JAopssuriyy ‘Attend sjojdwioey JO MoIA [P1OUOE) 


(‘Airenb ay} Jo s1auMO 94} Aq poyeuop ydeisojOYyd) ‘“PetaAOIsSIp 919M (AIVUI 9}IYM JIMOT) UOJI]I4sS 
S,pjryo pue (syurod ueur YsIYM 0} JaddgT) Mef Jamo, atayYM SurIMoys ‘Jiopssulsyy ‘Arsren() s sajduory 




1. The Ehringsdorf skull (1925), top view. (After Weidenreich. ) 
2. The adult Ehringsdorf jaw. 


The Ehringsdorf skull (1925). (After Weidenreich. ) 


ing the main (2nd) Interglacial. It is most desirable that there be 
reached, as soon as practicable, a consensus of scientific opinion on 
these questions. 

The quarry work at Ehringsdorf proceeds, and with the intelligent 
interest in the finds of the owners, the overseers, and even the work- 
men, and the nearness of Herr Lindig, it seems justifiable to hope 
that new discoveries will be made which will throw additional light 
on the highly interesting problems of the ancient Ilmstal population. 


KriaatscuH, H. Occipitalia und Temporalia der Schadel yon Spy, verglichen mit 
denen von Krapina. Zeitschr. f. Ethnol., Vol. 38, p. 396, 1902. 

Das Gesichtsskelett der Neandertalrasse und der Australier. Verh. 
Anat. Ges. Berlin, p. 223, 1908. 

Mo tttson, Tu. Neuere Funde und Untersuchungen fossiler Menschenaffen und 
Menschen. Erg. d. Anat. u. Entwicklungsgesch., Vol. 25, p. 696. 

SALLER, K. Die Menschenrassen im oberen Palaolithikum. Mitteil. Anthrop. 
Ges. Wien, Vol. 57, p. 81, 1927. 

SoERGEL, W. Losse, Eiszeiten und palaeolithische Kultur. Gustav Fischer, Jena, 

Besichtigung des Museums fur Urgeschichte in Weimar. Paldont. 
Zeitschr., Vol. 7, No. 3, 1926a. 

Totpt, C. Brauenwitiste, Tori supraorbitales und Brauenbogen, Arcus super- 
ciliares, und ihre mechanische Bedeutung. Mitteil. Anthrop. Ges. Wien, 
Vol. 44, p. 234, 1914. 

VircHow, H. Uber den Schadel von Ehringsdorf. Zeitschr. f. Ethnol., p. 2109, 

WEIDENREICH, F. Kurzer Fundbericht tiber ein in den Travertinbriichen von 
Weimar-Ehringsdorf gefundenes Schadel-Fragment vom Neanderthal- 
Typus.. Verh. Ges. f. phys. Anthrop. Freiburg i. B., p. 32, 1926. 

Rasse und Korperbau. Julius Springer, Berlin, 1927. 


Among the isolated specimens proceeding from early man are the 
two teeth of Taubach. One of these, a molar of the first dentition, 
was found in the Quaternary deposits at Taubach near Weimar, 
Germany, in 1892, by A. Weiss. The crown of this tooth shows 
considerable wear, and this fact, with various characteristics of the 
specimen, created at first an impression that the tooth was perhaps 
not human; later, however, the tooth was accepted as proceeding from 
a human child. Meanwhile one of the laborers at Taubach discovered 
in supposedly equally old deposiis a first permanent left lower molar 
about the human nature of which there can be no question, and this 
tooth also shows various primitive features. Both these finds have 


been reported upon and the specimens described by Nehring.’ The 
permanent molar is preserved in the museum of Jena. 

The site of Taubach, close to the village of the same name, lies in 
a terrace bordering the Ilm valley, not far from Ehringsdorf and but 
a few miles from Weimar. The terrace is built up of calcareous tufas 
alternating with sand. As early as 1874, excavations for the sand and 
stone began to disclose an ancient fauna, and with it traces of paleo- 
lithic human remains. 

The fauna is characterized by Elephas antiquus and Rhinoceros 
merckii, and is believed to date from a warm interglacial period. The 
artifacts comprise articles in stone, bone, and horn. The implements 
of flint, quartz, and other stone, lack characteristic forms; they are 
indefinite as to type, some approaching Mousterian forms, others 
appearing more primitive. Among the bone implements are numerous 
axes [or scrapers?] made of bear mandibles, scrapers of beaver jaws, 
a bone knife or disk, horn clubs or hammers, and other forms. 


The first human tooth was found in 1892, in the ‘‘ Mehlhorn trench,” 
at a depth of 5.10-5.25 m. (nearly 17 ft.), by Dr. A. Weiss, while 
the latter was collecting fossil animal skulls. The tooth showed 
similar alterations as did animal bones from the same layer. The 
specimen is described in 1895 by Nehring.’ It has been identified as 
the anterior left lower milk premolar. A question arose at first as 
to whether the tooth was human, but the identification as such has 
been generally accepted. 

The crown of the tooth shows some wear. It measures 8.8 mm. in 
length (ant.-posteriorly) ; 7.5 mm. in breadth (linguo-labially) ; the 
length is much the same as that of corresponding teeth in uncivilized 
modern races, the breadth is slightly greater. The drawing of the 
crown that accompanies Dr. Nehring’s report is a rather poor one 

*Gotze, A., Die paladolitische Fundstelle von Taubach bei Weimar (with 
earlier literature). Verh. Berl. Ges. Anthrop., pp. 366-377, 1892. Schotensack, 
O., Diluviale Funde von Taubach. Verh. Berl. Ges. Anthrop., pp. 92-95, 1895. 
Nehring, A., Uber einen fossilen Menschenzahn aus dem Diluvium von Taubach 
bei Weimar. Verh. Berl. Ges. Anthrop., Zeit. Ethn., pp. 338-340, 425-433, 1805. 
Same author, Uber einen menschlichen Molar aus dem Diluvium von Taubach 
bei Weimar. (Jbid., pp. 573-577.) See also Adloff, Das Gebiss des Menschen 
und der Anthropomorphen, Berlin, 1908; Schmidt, R. R., Die diluvial Vorzeit 
Deutschlands, Stuttgart, 1912; and Festschrift Anthropologische Versammlung 
Weimar, 1912. 

* Op. cit., pp. 338-340, I fig. 


and the double-size enlargement accentuates its defects. In essentials 
the foldings of the enamel are much like those of today. In 1923, the 
tooth was said to be still in the possession of Dr. Weiss and the 
writer was unable to reach it. 

About the second tooth there was for a time some uncertainty, 
but Dr. Nehring’s local inquiries appeared to establish the authenticity 
of the specimen. 

The tooth is the left lower permanent first molar. It proceeds from 
the same stratum as the milk tooth in the “ Sonnrein” excavation. 
It was found by the owner and worker, H. Sonnrein, secured by 
Professor Klopfleisch, and eventually deposited in the Jena Museum. 
The formation at this place was as follows: 

Repelal CINNUS MER CR eioe Concierto ie ieee cioais sea eveeient ems ete re cs 0.30 
2S lab wlinnestOnen saint elses Ae ieis mie eee eters els serovaioe easiest 0.80 
3. Fine-grained limestone with numerous snail shells......... 0.17 
eee Leatadleraagil ann gMAITICSEOME = faa) 2.) ais.nisiaieieis-2@ ore «vic! s1eFereueie ole + «/is 0.19 
Boge Et adel iMestOne my (LEAVERUIEI)! « cv- cin ere’ «'ote elm rnysiera eisiaterese 0 ee 0: ole 0.22 
Gam Ochreousshardelamestone saciricietiesciiela cecie cicianis + eielsie ele <i 0.20 -15.19 feet 
ees TACK OOSEHSEGACIIIM as cinicieieis <'ofs « «1 sisl60\e) 001s fe, sj ate w sieleva\ sleialsie/* 0.13 
SMS VeLtin meee eer eae oc Siticiel se cinvene aictars chetatita’y aisle yersve ere 1.59 
QuGrey acenilace@ts NMmestONe os. c. viele emiv ese cence «* 0.20 
TOME OCLC MME EME NRT Ree Ronis oc eee nat ierasohaieareiake lous otelecekers 0.03 
Pee BAM SLAMMEM SMTMESTOME. wie cs oc ee cco cies oleicie nee eleieleiavainrins 0.80 
12. Fine-grained often sandy limestone, with animal bones and 
PHERENT OMIM AMateetine ct eiarcla ere dail sieloelerelevela ntelelel ote che latent OM Gee Loins 

The crown of the tooth is 11.7 mm. long, 9.9 mm. broad [module 
10.8, B-L index 84.6]. In size the tooth can be matched in man of 
today. But its relative breadth and the index are decidedly low for 
a human tooth. They exceed those of any of the other early teeth 
(see section on “ Teeth”). The only known permanent lower first 
molars that equal the Taubach tooth are those attributed to the 
Dryopithecus suevicus (rhenanus), and those of the chimpanzee. 

Fic. 21.—The molar of Taubach. (After A. Nehring, 1895.) 

The conformation of the crown, and the roots, while offering some 
points of interest, are on the whole much like those of man. Nehring 


considered the folding of the enamel with some particulars as to the 
cusps to be somewhat chimpanzee-like, but nevertheless identified the 
tooth as human. Schwalbe classed it with the Neanderthal remains.’ 
For Duckworth, it was difficult to decide whether it was a human 
tooth or the tooth of a pithecoid precursor of man. Miller, and with 
him, Gregory, regard the tooth as belonging to a Pleistocene chimpan- 
zee (Pan vetus, Miller).* For Marcellin Boule, “ it is possible that it 
may have belonged to a man related to the Neanderthal type.” ‘ 

Today, after additional study of the tooth, G. S. Miller, Jr., in- 
forms the writer that he considers his earlier identification of the 
tooth as erroneous, regarding it now as a human tooth with some 
primitive characters. In the opinion of the writer, who saw the 
original in 1923, the tooth is clearly of a human type, though it is 
relatively slightly narrower than any human M1, ancient or recent, 
that he has seen so far.’ 

The atypical Taubach industry which has been referred by 
different authors to everything from Chellean to Mousterian, is now 
regarded as representing most probably the warm or older Mousterian 
and as closely allied to the Micoque culture.° 


In 1910 Messrs. Nicolle and Sinel, of the Island of Jersey, gave 
notice in Man, and in a bulletin of the Jersey Society,’ of the dis- 
covery, in an old cave on the Island of Jersey, of 13 highly interesting 
human teeth, belonging to a man of the Mousterian period. The 
principal details of the find, according to the clear account presented 
by the two authors and confirmed later by the writer's observations on 
the spot, are as follows: 

The cave where the ancient human remains were found is known 
as La Cotte, or La Cotte de St. Brelade, and is situated in a great 

*Die Vorgeschichte des Menschen, 1904. 

* Prehistoric Man, p. 23, Cambridge, 1912. 

* Gregory, W. K., Studies on the Evolution of Primates. Bull. Amer. Mus. 
Nat. Hist., Vol. 35, 1916. 

* Fossil Men, p. 146, 1923. 

* Hrdlicka, A., Variation in the Dimensions of Lower Molars in Man and 
Anthropoid Apes. Amer. Journ. Phys. Anthrop., Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 423-438, 1923. 

° Werth, E., Der fossile Mensch, Vol. 2, p. 512, 1927. See also, Schmidt, R. R., 
Die diluviale Vorzeit Deutschlands, Stuttgart, 1912. 

"Nicolle, E. T., and Sinel, J., Report on the exploration of the palaeolithic 
cave dwelling known as La Cotte, St. Brelade, Jersey. Man, Vol. 10, No. 102, 
pp. 185-188, 1910. Reprinted in 36° Bulletin de la Société Jersiaise, p. 69, 


The calcareous tufas of Taubach. (After Eichhorn. ) 

oe a 

: aw nis 


rough irregular cliff near the eastern horn of St. Brelade’s Bay, 
Jersey. At this part of the island granite rocks, considerably 
weathered and broken, rise steeply to about 200 feet above mean 
tide level, the shore at their base being covered with accumulations of 
large, rounded, waterworn bowlders (pl. 61). In one part of these 
cliffs there is an irregular rough ravine or gorge, which penetrates 
about 150 feet into a cliff. The side walls of this ravine are, in large 
part, quite vertical ; and in the wall on the left, near the upper terminus 
of the gorge, is a large cave which bears the above name. Before its 
exploration the La Cotte cave was nearly filled by clay, débris and 
blocks fallen from the much-weathered roof; while rubble drift, in 
the form of a steeply sloping talus, lay in front, obscuring a large 
portion of the mouth. Removal of this drift revealed the outline of 
the opening in the form of an irregular arch. 

The first indication that the cave was once utilized by man dates 
from 1881, when two local naturalists, while ‘ geologizing ”’ on that 
part of the coast, found a flint implement at the foot of the talus, 
and, tracing its source, came upon a slightly exposed section of the 
cave floor. There they found flint chippings and one or two bones, 
apparently of a large bird; but no importance was attached to the 
discovery. About 1894, two members of the Société Jersiaise, Mr. 
R. Colson and Dr. Chappuis, excavated a portion of the exposed 
floor section of the cave and found a considerable number of flint 
implements, and besides that a quantity of bone breccia which con- 
tained one tooth and one metatarsal of a variety of horse. Subse- 
quently various partial examinations of the accumulations in the cave 
resulted in the discovery of implements, and of a large number 
of flint chippings. All these are preserved in the Museum of the 
Société Jersiaise, at St. Heliere. 

In September, 1905, the Jersey Society decided to explore the 
cave systematically, and Dr. Chappuis, Mr. Nicolle the secretary, and 
Mr. Colson, commenced work in the part of the exposed floor already 
mentioned. More flint implements were discovered, but early in 
October the task had to be abandoned owing to the rainy season and 
to the fact that the workers were excavating under dangerous condi- 
tions. It became clear that a considerable portion of the talus as well 
as some of the threatening rocks overhead would have to be removed 
before the work could proceed. 

Thus matters remained until July, 1910, when the society resolved 
to make another attempt at the exploration of the cave. With the 
help of experienced quarrymen excavation was commenced on August 


I, and after a little over three weeks’ work sufficient of the rubble had 
been removed to reveal the form of the interior of the cave, and to lay 
bare a portion of the floor about 11 feet square to the left of the 
entrance. The dimensions of the cave as seen at this stage were as 
follows: The entrance was 25 feet in height and about 20 feet in 
width. Just within, the roof sloped upward into a rough dome 30 to 
32 feet from the floor ; how far the cave entered the rock could not be 
ascertained, but judging from the slope of the roof towards the back, 
it was probably some 40 to 50 feet. 

As soon as a portion of the floor had been reached, a careful search 
and examination were commenced, with the following results: 

The floor was not well defined. It consisted of compacted layers of 
black soil, which proved to be a combination of ashes, carbonized 
wood and clay, mixed with whitish bone detritus. Flint implements 
and chippings were interspersed plentifully throughout these de- 
posits. On the left of the entrance and at a distance from it of about 
8 feet, was a hearth containing a large quantity—probably a quarter 
of a ton or so—of wood ashes and carbonized wood. Close together, 
among the ashes of the hearth, were a few pebbles of granite and fei- 
site bearing indications of having been heated. 

The presence of bones was manifest all through the layers con- 
stituting the floor, but due to advanced decomposition of the material, 
the cave not being a dry one, only here and there could fragments 
retaining any form be obtained. Nevertheless in one corner, at a 
slightly higher elevation than the hearth, there was found a mass of 
bone from which some determinable portions could be secured; and 
a careful examination of this mass, after its transference to the 
Jersey Museum and treatment with gelatine, led to the most important 
result of the excavations to this time, namely, the discovery of nine 
human teeth. Four of these were from the upper, five from the lower 
jaw. They represent, as was later determined, teeth of both sides 
and of one individual, but unfortunately no trace of the once sup- 
porting bone was any more apparent. All the bones and teeth re- 
covered from the cave were taken to the British Museum for deter- 
mination, and Drs. Smith Woodward and Andrews identified the 
specimens as follows: 

ANIMAL TEETH: Part of left lower premolar of the woolly rhinoceros, Rhinoce- 
ros tichorhinus; last premolar and first molar of reindeer, Rangifer taran- 
dus (a large species apparently as large as the caribou) ; upper cheek teeth 
of a small species of horse; parts of lower molars and upper cheek tooth 
of a large species of horse; lower teeth in portion of jaw of one of the small 
Bovidae; and left incisor of Bos, Spec.? 

NINE HUMAN TEETH, with subsequent recovery of four others. 


BoNES AND HORNS: Part of horn core of one of small bovid; portion of antler 
of reindeer; bone, probably from articulation of foreleg of a deer; pelvic 
bones, probably from a small bovid; and a piece of bone, which fell to pieces 
on removal, from a rhinoceros. 

Among the fragments that could not be definitely determined was 
also apparently a portion of a human tibia. Of flint instruments about 
100 have been obtained. They are, without exception, of the well- 
known tongue-shaped Mousterian type, the “pointe a main” of 
Mortillet. The cave gave no evidence of other than one occupation, 
and is thus probably free from the confusion which results when 
implements and remains of the fauna of different periods occur to- 
gether and have become mixed by the work of burrowing animals, 
water during floods, and other agencies, as is often the case in similar 
deposits. By their fauna and the uniform type of stone implements, 
the La Cotte cave deposits are shown clearly to be of the Mousterian 

Further explorations of the site were carried on under the auspices 
of the Jersey Society in 1911 and again in 1912. They are reported 
by Nicolle and Sinel and by Marett." They threw considerable light 
on the nature of the cave and its filling, and were extended to what 
may prove to have been a part of the same hollow on the base of the 
wall of the opposite side of the gorge. They resulted in the discovery 
in both caves of numerous additional flint implements, all of the 
Mousterian type, and in the older excavation of more fragments of 
animal bones, referable principally to the woolly rhinoceros, the rein- 
deer, a large variety of horse, and probably the Bos prinugenius. But 
no further human bones or teeth came to light. 

Meanwhile the human teeth (pl. 62) were subjected to careful 
examination by Prof. Keith, of the Royal College of Surgeons, and 
Mr. Knowles, of the Oxford University. The results of these studies 
were published in rg11 in the Journal of Anatomy and Physiology,’ 

* Nicolle, E. T., and Sinel, J., Report on the Resumed Exploration of “La 
Cotte,” St. Brelade, by the Société Jersiaise, 1911. Man, Vol. 12, No. 88, 
pp. 158-162, 1912. Also in 37° Bulletin de la Société Jersiaise, pp. 213-222, 1912. 

Marett, R. R., Pleistocene Man in Jersey. Archzologia, Vol. 62, pp. 449- 
480, Oxford, Io1t. 

Marett, R. R., Further Observations on Prehistoric Man in Jersey. Arche- 
ologia, Vol. 63, pp. 1-28, 1912. 

Marett, R. R., and De Gruchy, G. F. B., Excavation of a Further Portion of 
La Cotte de St. Brelade. 38° Bulletin de la Société Jersiaise, pp. 320-330, 1913. 

* Keith, A., and Knowles, F. H. S., A Description of Teeth of Paleolithic Man 
from Jersey. Journ. Anat. Physiol., London, Vol. 46, pp. 12-27, 1911. Re- 
printed, with an additional note, in 37° Bulletin de la Société Jersiaise, pp. 223- 
240, 1912. Abstract in Nature, Vol. 86, pp. 415-416, I9QII. 


and later, with some additions, in the thirty-seventh bulletin of the 
Jersey Society. The following embraces the gist of these reports, as 
well as of the writer’s own observations.’ 

The teeth are in an unexpectedly good state of preservation, only 
the terminal parts of the roots being broken away. Their color is 
dark brown, with grayish white somewhat chalky looking crowns. 
All show advanced degree of fossilization. The apices of the cusps 
were worn away in life and the finer architecture of the crown is 
as if faded, probably through corrosive action of the moisture in the 
deposits that enclosed the specimens. 

Five of the teeth, namely, a second left premolar, a first right and 
a second left molar, and the right and left third molar, with a part 
of the root of left incisor, belong to the upper jaw, while seven are 
from the lower jaw, being respectively a canine, first and second pre- 
molar with second molar of the left side, and a second incisor with 
second and third molars of the right side. All are probably from the 
same set and their characteristics are such that the ancient man they 
represent must be ranked anthropologically as one of the most primi- 
tive yet discovered. 

The illustration on plate 63 shows a reconstruction of the upper 
and lower dental arches of the St. Brelade man, by Keith and Knowles, 
and the upper arch in the modern human skull, after Cunningham. 
It is seen at a glance that the Jersey teeth are larger than the modern 
in every direction and that in consequence the dental arches themselves 
must have been considerably larger. 

Another feature in which the Jersey teeth differ even more radi- 
cally from the recent, is their extraordinarily stout roots. The diam- 
eters of the neck and roots of the Jersey teeth are almost equal to 
and in some cases exceed those of the crown, indicating that rela- 
tively great requirements were made on the teeth by the quality and 
possibly also quantity of the food. Such roots indicate unmistakably 
strong muscles of mastication and a stout massive lower jaw, prob- 
ably somewhat smaller but scarcely less powerful than the still earlier 
Mauer mandible. 

1In June, 1912, the writer visited Jersey to examine the original teeth and 
to visit the cave where they were discovered, and he wishes warmly to thank Mr. 
Sinel and Dr. Dunlap for the courteous treatment and facilities which they ex- 
tended to him on this occasion, as well as to Captain Rybot, of the 76th Punjabis, 
for his service in furnishing excellent sketches of the locality. In 1923 the writer 
revisited Jersey and the cave with Professor Marett, whose great courtesy is also 
hereby gratefully acknowledged. 


The roots of the Jersey premolars and molars are not only stout 
but they are also to a large extent fused. This is not an anthropoid 
feature, for in the higher apes these roots are well apart. The fusion 
is due to great development of the dentine and cement of the roots, 
brought about in this early man, in the opinion of Keith and Knowles, 
by a changed manner of mastication, characterized by more lateral 
besides vertical movements of the lower jaw. Other primitive fea- 
tures of the teeth are the early filling of the pulp cavities by deposits 
of dentine, thus providing an early adaptation for wear ; the size 
and characters of the first premolars, which contrary to what occurs 
in present man are larger than the second ; and certain features of 
the canine as well as of the molars. 

Without going into more details, for which the reader may consult 
the originals—it may safely be concluded that the Jersey teeth con- 
stitute another valuable document of man’s ancestry; and that they 
show an early man, probably a representative of Homo neanderthal- 
ensis, already quite advanced in denture from the prehuman forms, but 
still with teeth more powerful as well as less specifically differentiated 
than those of present man. 

In 1916, Professor Marett reports in detail on additional work in 
the La Cotte de St. Brelade and on the fauna and stone industry of 
the cave. Further explorations have been carried on in 1913, 1914 
and 1915. A large part of the original cave was cleared. By the end 
of 1915, some 1,200 square feet of the paleolithic floor had been un- 
earthed and thoroughly examined ; and the upper part of the wall of 
the débris to the rear of the cave had been cut back to the distance of 
50 feet from the entrance. Later, exploration was commenced also in 
the cave on the other side of the ravine. 

The combined explorations to the end of 1915, resulted in the 
recovery of many thousands of stone implements and rejects, and 
also of numerous bones of Pleistocene animals; but there were no 
further important discoveries of skeletal remains of man. Outside 
of the cave, in the talus at the back of the ravine, there were found, 
regettably without scientific supervision, three pieces of a partly cre- 
mated child’s skull. The largest portion is that of the left side of the 
occipital ; according to Dr. Keith it belonged to a child not more 
than six years of age, and both inside and outside bears the marks 
of the modern rather than the Neanderthal type of man. This was 
therefore probably a later intrusive specimen. 


The list of animal species from the cave comprises now the fol- 

Elephas ?trogontheru Dicrostonyx torquatus 
Elephas primigenius Microtus ratticeps 
Rhinoceros tichorhinus Arvicola sp. 

Cervus megaceros Lepus ?cuniculus 
Cervus tarandus Sorex araneus 

Cervus elaphus Anser brachyrhynchus 
Cervus ?capreolus Bernicla leucopsis 
Cervus sp. Bernicla brenta 
Equus Gallinula chloropus 
Bos primigenius Cinclus aquaticus 
Hyaena crocuta, var. spelaeca _Tetrao sp. 

Canis ?lupus ?Lagopus mutus 
Canis vulpes Falco tinnunculus 

In the case of the ox, horse, reindeer, and rabbit, considerable 
discrepancies occur in the size of the teeth and other bones, and it 
may well be that bison coexisted with the urus, Prjewalski’s horse 
with the “ forest horse,” caribou with a smaller reindeer, and Arctic 
hare with the rabbit. The bones of all the species were in close associ- 
ation with implements of Mousterian pattern. 

The stratigraphy was rather disappointing. 

Among the artifacts there was a small flat piece of bone on which 
are to be seen a number of parallel double cuts of artificial, human 
origin. Several sharply pointed pieces of bone may have served as 
drills ; but a convincing example of a bone implement has up to the 
end of 1915 not come to light. As to the flint industry, the total 
number of flints showing human work recovered from the cave to 
the end of 1915, was 15,070. Among these 155 were perfect specimens 
of Mousterian tools of first quality, showing the classic forms of this 
industry. Then came several thousands of rougher examples, of 
second and third quality ; the remainder being waste of manufacture. 

Marett inclined at this period to assign the industry of the cave 
to two periods, probably separated by a chronological hiatus. The 
industry of the first period he assigns to the Middle Mousterian. 
“Tt is, in fact, the typical industry of Le Moustier itself.” The work 
of the upper bed on the other hand he assigns to the Upper Mousterian. 
It is not Aurignacian in his opinion, “ but nevertheless foreshadows 
the Aurignacian industry in a number of ways. There are particular 
implements, though in no sense typical ones, that closely resemble 
Aurignacian forms as regards their outline; but the trimming is 
Mousterian, not Aurignacian, in its technique.” The conclusion of 

19 “Id ‘€8 “10A 

(nosey “WM AM Aq ydeisojoyd) ‘advo Aassof oy L, 


(‘ptojxO JO ‘Worey 
‘MM Ad Aq vounzyysuy ueruosyzwig ay} 07 paystusny ydessojoyd e wory ‘YWOM Jy) “Yjoo} Aossaf sy yp 


(weysuiuuny Jajyy) ‘Yyjeo} pue yore [ejuep Jaddn usspoyy ‘9 
(yay Joipy) “yore 

Jepoaare Jaddn ay} Jo uoTONAYsuODaI YM ‘suoNtsod ajqeqoid sayy Ur ‘uvUT Adstof ay} Jo Mef toddn ay} Jo Yoo, “q 
(‘U}loy Jovy ) “Yote 

IP[OIATE JIMOT JO UOTONAJsSUOIAL YM ‘suoTIsod ayqeqoid slay} ut paoeyd ‘ueut Aassaf oy} JO Mef JIMOT JO YJoaL, “P 

eh E 

J Mee cee Yemen oe * 
~~ fiero op re 


Professor Marett, in 1916, is that “ La Cotte de St. Brelade is entitled 
to rank as a pure Mousterian site, as rich and representative in its 
way as almost any in Europe.” 


KeirH, A., AND Know es, Francis H. S. A description of teeth of Palae- 
olithic man from Jersey. Bull. Soc. Jersiaise, Vol. 37, pp. 223-240, 1912. 
Also Journ. Anat. and Phys., Vol. 46, pp. 12-27, 1011. 

Marert, R. R. Pleistocene man in Jersey. Archaeologia, Vol. 62, pp. 449-480, 
Oxford, Tort. : 
Further observations on prehistoric man in Jersey. Published by Soc. 

Antiq. London, 1912. 

The site, fauna, and industry of La Cotte de St. Brelade, Jersey. 

Archaeologia, Vol. 67, pp. 75-118, Oxford, 1916. 

AND DE Grucny, G. F. B. Excavation of a further portion of La Cotte 
de St. Brelade. Bull. Soc. Jersiaise, Vol. 38, pp. 326-330, 1913. 

SrneL, J. Prehistoric times and men of the Channel Islands. Jersey, 137 pp., 

AND NicoLie, E. T. Report on the exploration of the palaeolithic 

cave-dwelling known as La Cotte, St. Brelade, Jersey. Bull. Soc. Jersiaise, 

Vol. 36, pp. 69-74, IOIT. 

Report of the resumed exploration of “La Cotte,” St. Brelade, 1o1t. 

Bull. Soc. Jersiaise, Vol. 37, pp. 213-210, 1912. 


One of the most interesting, best authenticated, and thanks to 
Marcellin Boule now best-known skeletons of early man, is that of 
“the fossil man of La Chapelle-Aux-Saints.” La Chapelle-Aux- 
Saints is a small village in the Department of Corréze, near the small 
railroad station of Vayrac, south of the town of Brive, in southern 
France. A little over 200 yards from the village and beyond the left 
bank of the small stream Sourdoire, in the side of a moderate elevation, 
is a cave, now known as that of La Chapelle-Aux-Saints (pl..64). In 
1905 archeological exploration of this cave was undertaken by three 
Corréze priests, the Abbés A. and J. Bouyssonie and L. Bardon. These 
explorations which from the beginning were successful, resulting in 
the recovery of numerous industrial and other vestiges of paleolithic 
man, progressed gradually until the uniform archeological stratum 
was nearly exhausted, when, on August 3, 1908, in the floor of the 
cave, the excavators came across a shallow artificial fossa in which 
lay remnants of the bones of a remarkable human skeleton. 

The human bones were carefully gathered and sent to Professor 
Boule, at the Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, where they were 
cleaned and as far as possible restored ; and the following December 
Professor Boule demonstrated the skull, giving at the same time the 


first account of the find, before the Paris Academy of Sciences.” One 
week later Messrs. Bouyssonie and Bardon presented before the 
Academy their own observations, and these reports were followed at 
short intervals by several others before the same scientific body.’ 
Subsequently the skull and other parts of the skeleton were subjected 
by Professor Boule to a thorough study and comparison. The results 


Fic. 22.—The interior of the La Chapelle cave. 

* Boule, M., L’Homme fossile de la Chapelle-Aux-Saints. C. R. Acad. Sci. 
Paris, Dec. ‘14, 1908. L’Anthropologie, Vol. 19, pp. 513-519, 1908; Vol. 20, 
p. 257, 1909; Vol. 22, p. 120, IOIT. 

* Bouyssonie, A. and J., and Bardon, L., Découverte d’un squelette humain 
moustérien a la boufha de La Chapelle-Aux-Saints. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, 
Dec. 21, 1908. Boule, M., Sur la capacité cranienne des Hommes fossiles du 
type dit de Neanderthal. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, May 17, 1909; Le squelette du 

tronc et des membres de l’Homme fossile de La Chapelle-Aux-Saints. C. R. 
Acad. Sci. Paris, June 7, 1900. 


of his work were published in a series of communications extending 
through the sixth, seventh and eighth volumes of the Annales de 
Paléontologie, and in 1913 they were issued in a large individual 

These various reports show that the cave of La Chapelle-Aux-Saints 
is a moderate-sized and rather low cavity, about 6 m. (19 ft.) long, 
2 to 4 m. (6 to 13 ft.) broad, and 1 to 1.50 m. (3 to 4.5 ft.) high 
(fig. 23). When first approached it was seen to be nearly filled with 
old accumulations, which later disclosed numerous traces of man, and 
with débris of the rock from the roof and sides. 

The stratigraphy of the cave was found to be quite simple—there 
was but one fossiliferous layer, of Pleistocene age, posterior appar- 
ently to the excavation of the fossa that contained the skeleton (Boule, 
Mem., pp. 10-12). The worked flints and quartz gathered from this 
layer reached over 1,000 in number. They showed careful and able 
work. They comprised especially the two classical Mousterian types, 
points and scrapers, and their derivatives. There were also a few 
instruments of Acheulean type, and a number of well chipped blades 
as well as other forms that presaged the Aurignacian. There was no 
trace however of any worked bone. 

The animal bones show generally signs of intentional breaking, for 
the marrow ; some show also traces of fire or marks of implements. 
The following species were identified : 

Rhinoceros tichorhinus Canis vulpes 
Hyaena crocuta Meles taxus 
Rangifer tarandus Equus caballus 
Capra ibex Sus scrofa 

Bison priscus Arctomys marmotta 
Cants lupus Various birds. 

This is a cold fauna, referable to the last glaciation. 

Under the accumulations the floor of the cavern was found to be 
whitish, hard, marly calcareous ; and in this hard base, at the distance 
of a little over four m. from the entrance of the cave, was found 
a nearly rectangular, moderate-sized cavity, which lodged a fossil 
human skeleton. The depression, in the opinion of the explorers, 
had clearly been made by the primitive inhabitants or visitors of the 
cave, representing a regular burial, one of the most ancient inten- 
tional burials thus far discovered. 

* Paris, 1911 to 1913. Also published as a separate volume, 278 pp., numerous 
pls. and figs., Paris, 1913. For brevity this volume will be referred to hence- 
forth as the “ Mém.” 

*1.45 m. long, 1 m. broad, and 30 cm, deep. 



VOL. 83 



Uf Y “WY, bif fe 
YWHAY lili Ye 
; Yj 4 

: p lee il) “Llp 
ee —_ CeetsstittlllD 

Ura porn ae Sa 
% Ze : 
oO 90 

Fic. 23.—The La Chapelle cave, transversely at entrance (upper), longitudinally 
(middle), and transversely at the skeleton fossa (lower). (After Boule. ) 


The body lay apparently on its back, with the head to the westward. 
The head reposed against the wall of the fossa in one corner, and was 
surrounded by stones. The left arm was extended, the right probably 
bent so that the hand was applied to or lay near the head. The lower 
limbs were flexed. Above the head were found three or four large 
flat fragments of long bones of animals, and somewhat higher there 
lay, still in their natural relation, the foot bones of a large bovid. 
suggesting that the whole foot of the animal may have been placed 
in that position, perhaps as an offering to the dead. About the body 
in the fossa were numerous flakes of quartz and flint, some fragments 
of ochre, broken animal bones, etc., much as in the rest of the arche- 
ological stratum above the skeleton. To the right of the fossa contain- 
ing the skeleton were many large fragments of various animal bones, 
jaws and vertebrae of the reindeer, and vertebrae of a large bovid. 
with some very well made implements of flint. The last-named verte- 
brae and the flint implements were covered by two large slabs of 
stone; and above these slabs, at the side wall of the cave, the earth 
showed the effects of fire; but it was not possible to determine 
whether this was of the same date as the deposits or the human burial 
beneath. There was no indication that the deposits in the cave had 
been moved in any way since the burial of the human body. 

On taking out the human bones it was found that, through decay 
or other causes, many were defective, and some parts of the human 
skeleton were lost. What remained comprises the skull, almost com- 
plete, with the lower jaw; 21 vertebrae or pieces of same; 20 ribs or 
their fragments ; an incomplete left clavicle; the two humeri, almost 
complete ; the two radii and the two ulnae, all more or less defective ; 
a few bones of the hands and feet; portions of the pelvic bones, 
fragments of the right femur (from which it is possible to recon- 
struct the bone) and the lower half of the left femur ; the two patellae, 
and parts of the tibiae. The state of preservation of the specimens 
is exactly like that of the animal bones recovered from the deposits 
about the burial fossa. They are ferruginous in color, heavier than any 
corresponding recent human bones and very perceptibly mineralized. 

Through the kindness of Prof. Boule the writer was enabled in 1912 
and again in 1923 and 1927 to see the originals of the Chapelle-aux- 
Saints skeleton. It was not possible to undertake any personal detailed 
study on the bones, but even brief examinations were sufficient to im- 
press one deeply, particularly in the case of the skull, with the great 
scientific value of the remains. They represent another precious addi- 
tion to the rapidly augmenting material evidence of the highly inter- 
esting type of ancient man, Homo neanderthalensis. 


With the excellent and well-illustrated reports of Professor Boule, 
with a good plaster model of the skull, and with the writer’s observa- 
tions on the originals, it is possible to give the following notes on 
these specimens. The illustrations are all after Boule. 


The La Chapelle skull, notwithstanding its many peculiarities, is 
plainly a normal specimen, not affected (except in the dental arches) 
by any disease or by any premature closure of sutures (pls. 65, 66), 
and with but moderate injuries. The skull, except for the sexual 
differences, comes close in many respects to that of Gibraltar. It is 
also closely related to that of Neanderthal; but, except for the vault 
of No. 1, it is distinctly more primitive than the Spy crania, par- 
ticularly in its facial portions and the lower jaw. The characteristics 
that strike one most forcibly at first. sight about the La Chapelle 
specimen are the lowness and the large size, especially in length, 
of the vault; the huge supraorbital arch; primitive features of the 
face; and a large and primitive lower jaw. More in detail the skull 
presents the following features: 

The vault—The vault is of the same type as that of the Neander- 
thal skull, being only somewhat longer and more spacious. There are 
the same heavy semilunar supraorbital welts or arches meeting in a 
shallow depression at the glabella, which is carried far forward. The 
arches are about as heavy and thick as in the Neanderthal, and show 
but a very slight tendency towards diminution in thickness from the 
middle of the upper orbital borders outward. In the median line 
the arches descend united down the stout nasal process of the frontal. 
Above the supraorbital arches there is much the same depression as in 
the Neanderthal skull; but the forehead of the La Chapelle skull, 
while about equally as broad as that in the Neanderthal, shows slightly 
greater height and fullness. The sagittal region is quite smooth and 
oval from side to side. The parietal eminences are situated low from 
above downward and far back as in the Neanderthal and the Spy 
No. 1. The occiput, somewhat more protruding on the right, is typi- 
cally Neanderthal—broad from side to side and flattened both above 
and below. Its protrusion is rather marked when the skull is viewed 
from the side. There is a strong superior nuchal torus, but it does not 
extend downward and forward. 

The outline of the vault when viewed from above is a prolonged 
ovoid, mildly asymmetric in its posterior portion, due to the slightly 
greater size and potrusion backwards of the right side. The temporal 
squamae are low, the temporal fossae large, the zygomae very stout. 


The temporal ridges (lines) above are not strongly marked and do not 
approach close to the sagittal suture. The mastoids are remarkably 
moderate for a male skull and one of this size, approaching in this 
respect the earlier primate forms. The digastric groove beneath is 

- - 
wee ee ee 

LarChapelle “= 
Neanderthal ~~ 

A ‘ 


Fic. 24.—The La Chapelle skull, and comparison of the outline of its norma 
superior with that of other Neanderthal skulls. (After Boule.) 

broad, as in other Neanderthalers. The bones of the vault, seen well 
through a large defect in the upper part of the left parietal, are not 
as thick as in the Neanderthal skull, but are about one-fifth stouter 
than they are in average white male skulls of today; the parietal 
measures 6 to 8 mm., the frontal squama 8 mm. 

The base-—The base is considerably damaged. It was evidently 
rather flat. The foramen magnum is large, situated relatively slightly 


more backward than in modern skulls, and shows less inclination. 
The condyles are small and low. The stout pterygoid processes ran 
upwards and backwards, more obliquely than in recent skulls. The 
temporal-basal parts are all stout. There were no styloids. The 
glenoid region on each side is massive and large. The glenoid fossae 
are somewhat shallow but broad laterally, and their shape is such that 
their cast, especially on the right, would present a well marked 
lateral ridge along the summit; in other words, their cross section 
antero-posteriorly would approach somewhat more the V-shape than 
the U-shape that is generally seen in modern crania. Between the 
tympanic plate and the mastoid on each side is a groove approximately 
7 mm. broad, much as in the Gibraltar skull; crania of today show 
only occasional traces of such a groove. 

The face.—The orbits are large, though relative to the size of the 
face and skull not as large as in the Gibraltar specimen; and they 
are roughly rounded. The borders are very dull superiorly and mesi- 
ally, better defined inferiorly. Due to the pronounced supraorbital 
arch the upper half of the orbits, as in the Neanderthal skull, has 
a somewhat forward and downward inclination, unlike that of any man 
of today. Laterally, moreover, their plane slopes very perceptibly 
outwards and backwards, as in the Gibraltar. The mid-portion of 
the face from the nasion downward is markedly stouter, fuller, and 
more protruding forward than it is in modern skulls—much as in the 
Gibraltar cranium. There are no suborbital (canine) fossae, the 
surface of the maxillae in this region being perceptibly convex, instead 
of concave—again as in the Gibraltar. The nasal aperture is very 
broad—once more as in the Gibraltar. The nasal spine is moderately 
developed, especially on the right. The lower nasal borders are fairly 
sharp. On the left in the rear of the border is seen a groove, followed 
by a moderate dull ridge, running from the base of the spine upward 
and slightly backward to above the middle of the lateral wall of the 
aperture. All the facial bones are stronger than they are in modern 
skulls. The body of the malars was relatively small, especially for a 
male, but the nasal and zygomatic processes are broad and stout. 
There was no protrusion forward of the malars and the plane of 
their surface sloped backward more than in any modern crania. 
This is distinctly a simian feature. Here again there are close re- 
semblances to the Gibraltar. The upper alveolar process (and also 
the lower) has suffered considerably from absorption after a loss 
of most of the teeth, probably due to old age. It was not especially 
high or especially sloping forward (alveolar prognathism), but the 


whole region was carried more forward than in more recent skulls, 
giving greater facial prognathism (see measurements). This was due 
plainly to the large development of the dental arches, teeth, and the 
jaws. The upper dental arch and palate are very large. The palate 
is U-shaped and of about medium depth ; there is no torus. 

Fic. 25.—Upper and lower dental arches of the La Chapelle skull, as 
reconstructed by Boule. 

The teeth—Of the teeth there remain only a left upper and left 
lower premolar, and both of them much worn. The lower premolar, 
with but a remnant of the enamel, shows an opening of the pulp 
cavity, and a very oblique wear sloping toward the lingual border. 
There is no mark of decay and the teeth were lost most probably 


through infection following the exposure, through wear, of the pulp 
cavities; there are traces of root abscesses. 

The lower jaw.—The lower jaw is large antero-posteriorly, and 
also laterally. There is no chin and the symphyseal line was slightly 
negative (receding). The body was about as high and stout as in the 
most developed jaws of today. The rami are of about medium breadth 
for a jaw of this size; they are broader than the rami in most modern 
jaws but do not reach the proportions of those in some Eskimo and 
in the Mauer mandible. The upper third of the rami shows a per- 
ceptible eversion on the right side, which may, however, be post- 
mortem. The condyles as seen from that on the right were short and 

Inferiorly, in its anterior portion, the jaw is slightly arched, and 
presents a bilateral, nearly flat surface for the insertion of the 
digastric muscles. There is a trace of an internal shelf in the form 
of a moderate swelling between the lingual border of the anterior 
portion of the jaw and the genial tubercles. The genial tubercles are 
rather small and much as they are in some modern jaws. Above them 
and on each side is a marked hollow, only rarely present in modern 
jaws; and above this hollow the bone rises in mild convexity to the 
border of the stout alveolar process. 

The mylohyoid ridges are not excessive ; but above and in front of 
them, in the premolar region, there are present lingually on the sur- 
face of the bone moderate swellings such as observed in the Mauer 
jaw and frequently in strong modern mandibles. The rami show sev- 
eral interesting exceptional features, the most striking of which is a 
defect of the angles. From about its middle the posterior border 
curves (on right) or bends (on left) downwards and forwards. The 
resulting form of the angle region approaches, especially on the left, 
that in the anthropoids. 

The second peculiarity is the presence, on the external surface of 
each ramus, proceeding from the outer end of the condyle downwards, 
of a dull, fairly broad ridge, which looks like a supporting pillar or 
root of the condyle. It is clearly a reinforcement feature, of me- 
chanical origin, due to the heavy stresses on the condyle. It is better 
marked on the left than on the right ramus; and between it and the 
anterior border of the ramus is a marked broad parallel depression. 
Nothing of this sort exists in simian jaws. 

Other reinforcing ridges, with consequent fossae, are seen on the 
internal surface of the rami, and here the conditions approach de- 
cidedly those in the lower jaws of the large anthropoid apes. A 
pronounced ridge runs downward from the coronoid process, and 


another runs downward and forward from the inner end of the 
condyle. These two meet in a plain V in front of the neural foramen, 
midway between this and the anterior border of .the ramus, where 
they form a pronounced single elevation that runs downward and 
forward to merge with the mylohyoid ridge. These several ridges 
leave in front, within the V, and especially behind the latter, marked 
hollows. All these features may be found represented more or less in 
the jaws of present man; but jointly and so highly developed, they 
occur only in the large anthropoid apes. The sigmoid notch is shallow, 
though less so than in the Mauer jaw. 


The La Chapelle skull, as a whole, is plainly one of the more typical 
representatives of Neanderthal man. Its closest relations, particularly 


Boule Hrdli¢ka 

cm. cm. 
Length max. from glabella...........-----..----- 20.8 RE 

PrOMMOPNEYORG cia es, cmrerec a te etter kaon ene close to 19.8 
Br arte Castner, ones heats ae ee aie gh 15.6 

Cranial index with length max...............-. 75.0 ered. 

with length from ophryon..............-.-.- Dae 78.8 
Basion-bregmia height... 2.0.0. 5. - 2262s ees 13.2 
< ; bas.-bg. height X 100 

aN mean of length plus eed (Bo 
Breadth-height mdex. .. 4. 3.c- ohm asae ooo 83.9 84.0 
G@alottal index of Schwalbe: =. ...06 ica. 2-5.) 40.5} 
Bint frontal anita... 2... dee sere ose ary ol teh 10.9 
I aaitrontalanax.c0 4. ete a ane os 12.2 
Breadth max. of supraorbital arch..............-- 12.4 

Index a eens no) cee ok pec oeee ane Ae 89.3 

d. f. max. 

Face: Total height (menton-nasion).............--. approx. 13.1 

Height, alveolar point-nasion..........-...---. 8.6 

Diam. bizveamatic MAX... 6S es denne a 15:3 

ipper feral WOK. oc. ce be oe ns aie oe ee 56.2 
Facial angle (angle formed by lines basion-alveolar 

point and alveolar point-nasion).............--: 62° 63° 
Alveolar angle (angle formed by lines basion- 

alveolar-point and alveolar point-subnasal point)? eo ak 55 
Upper dental arch: Length max.............----- a0 eee 

Rea Ciera eee aoe ou e oxen eae eed aenresener ane cle. 7.13 near 7.4 

Index ( Et) es TE tS Oa Oe He ERE : 08 .6 near 94.6 

ee ee ne 




Orbits: Breadth right 0. 2}asei ce a ie Re 4.75 

lefts cS aah on! ke Saray ater ae meee 4.65 

Heichit moht \lc)-0.a% 4 s/vecaeaeas am remap eke 3.90 

lOfE Ses otlea eee Abe Sarat aT ae iain 3.80 

Rnd Ex; Mean sisi beessie ere eee eto ee ore epee ie ST.9 

Nose: Length (nasion-spine) (2.500441 ee ee steer 6.14 

Length (nasion-lowest points of inferior border of 

aperture each Side)). cc nqstes sect siom + sx hice ote Feve 6.4 
Breadtheisiauwodoc mi alakaet ae ae Mises cities gee teres Zinc Moyne 
MING OX ee rortcak ate ye een tueke ea seetre ayn ree ae aS eny Boat 

1 if ; : ae ; 
Max.-vertical height from the glabella inion line X 100 Game linder inthe Pitheeautheacuats 
Length of the glabella-inion line. 

34.2; in the Gibraltar skull, 40.0; in the Neanderthal 40.4; in Spy No. 1, 40.9; and in Spy No. 2, 
44.3 cm. (Boule, Mém., p. 36.) 

2 Lowest point on the inferior border of the left nasal notch. 

3 Owing to borders damaged or wanting, not enough allowance made; maximum original 
breadth was greater. , 

4 Evidently not taken to base of spine, which corresponds to the middle of a line connecting 
the lowest points of the border of the aperture on each side. 

LoweER JAw 

cm. cm 
Height of body at mental foramen (in rear of post. 

01 fai0018) (24 g) amen Parrett eecP ate ean a. conta cic ms ech Gen Oem, © Bye 
Thickness of body at same vertical............... 1.6 enon: 
EBhicknesst maxed yly-ae vce Ole eee eae oe De ba is was probably 

not over I.7 
Symphyseal angle (angle formed by the line of the 

NELWh) ewok aon Gist a eh San ale CL ee RE ee 104°! 
Mandibularanclen ances none cca 110° 
Lateral diam: of righticondyle... 220.045 se ae 2.9 
Antero-post. diam. of right condyle............... 135 : 
Minimum breadth of ascending ramus, right....... Bete 4.65 

HMeicht of mchtramuswneate eee eee eee Sar 6 
Heightof lett ramussneae ieee See aphets. 6 
Wengthiof corpus, approx, riglit. 24 i erate See 12 
Length of corpus, approx., left 12 

‘In man of today this angle varies approximately from 57° to 93°; in early human mandibles 
from 85° to 110°; in anthropoid apes from 105° to 124° (Boule, Mém. p. 83). 

in the facial portion, are with the skull of Gibraltar. It approaches 
in many essentials the human skull of today ; yet it carries still many 
remnants of the prehuman past. As will be seen later, it belonged to 
a male of short stature but very muscular, massive frame, which 
doubtless accounts in great measure for its large brain. 



In the study of the bones of the skeleton of La Chapelle the student 
is seriously handicapped, on one hand, by the more or less defective 
state of the remains, and on the other, by a lack of casts, with the 
inability to use the originals. It is true that an excellent and detailed 
description of the remains is given by the one in whose charge they 
have been placed, Prof. Marcellin Boule; but even he does not give 
some of the important measurements, such for instance as the di- 
ameters at the middle of the shaft of the long bones, while in other 
cases he merges the measurements with those of other Neanderthal 
skeletons so that they lose their individuality. Thanks to Professor 
Boule the writer has been able to look over the originals, though 
not to take any measurements. The lack of the casts is a most serious 
disadvantage, and it is in the interests of human prehistory that it 
be soon remedied. 

The following notes on the skeletal parts are largely after Pro- 
fessor Boule.’ 

The different parts of the skeleton are substantially related to those 
of other Neanderthal remains, more particular to those of the skele- 
tons Neanderthal, Spy No. 2 and the male La Ferrassie. 

The vertebrae—The vertebral column of the man of La Chapelle 
was short and stocky. All the vertebrae that remain are remarkable 
for the low height of their bodies. Many of the vertebrae show some 
senile marginal exostoses. The three cervical vertebrae with the 
uppermost dorsal are remarkable for their nearly horizontal spines, 
which is a simian character seldom approached in man of today. 
The dorsal and lumbar vertebrae—all that remains of them—are 
marked by the relative lowness of their bodies, and by various minor 
peculiarities. In the lumbar region the vertebral canal is considerably 
larger, relatively, than it is in present man. The articular facets of 
the transverse processes of the lumbar vertebrae, particularly in the 
case of the first, are relatively large and flat. A portion of the first 
sacral vertebra shows a large neural canal. Judging from what re- 
mains of the sacrum the bone was rather narrow and straight. 

The ribs—The ribs are stout and their cross section is triangular 
and not flattened as it is in modern skeletons. This form indicates 
the existence of powerful intercostal muscles. The curvatures of the 
ribs, where shown, are less pronounced than in corresponding ribs 
of the present time. 

1Meém., p. 106 et seq. 


The clavicles—FPresent, approximately the distal half of the left 
bone. It is seen that the clavicle was relatively long, but of only 
moderate strength. This agrees with the characteristics of the 
clavicle in all the other known Neanderthal remains where more or 
less of the bone is preserved. It indicates a very broad chest. 

The humeri.—The right humerus is but little damaged, lacking a 
small part of the head ; in the left humerus the head is largely deficient. 
The right bone is notably stronger than the left, indicating strongly 
developed right handedness, which is essentially a human character. 
The humeri were relatively stout and short, their extremities volumi- 
nous. All the muscular insertions are strongly marked. The strength 
of the right bone exceeds slightly that of even the strongest bones 
of today. The torsion of the humerus falls within the present range 
of variation of this character. The shaft is remarkably straight and 
cylindrical, resembling in this respect more the humeri of the large 
anthropoids than those of present man. The distal extremity of the 
humerus is large, and presents various details of interest. The large 
fossa is not perforated. All the characters denote a strong develop- 
ment of the muscles. The left humerus differs from the right only 
by its greater slenderness. On the whole the morphology of the 
humeri of La Chapelle is very human. 

Bones of the forearm.—All of the bones are present but not com- 
plete. They are remarkable for the grossness of their extremities, 
the strength of the muscular impressions, and the pronounced curva- 
tures of the shaft. 

The radii—The right radius is distinctly stronger than the left, 
though the difference is less marked than that between the humeri 
of the two sides. 

The ulnae.—The right ulna is but slightly stronger than the left. 
The shafts of the ulnae are very straight and much less prismatic 
than in present man. An outline of the shaft at the middle is nearly 
elliptic, approaching thus the shape of the bone in the anthropoid 
apes. The upper part of the shaft is extraordinarily flattened antero- 
posteriorly. The head and the olecranon process are stouter in all 
respects than in modern man. The coronoid process is more horizontal 
than usual today. The articular facets are less excavated. On the 
whole both the radius and the ulna of the La Chapelle skeleton, in 
common with the forearm bones of other Neanderthal skeletons, 
show a number of inferior ancestral characters, and differ correspond- 
ingly from the same bones in modern man. 


Bones of the hands—The metacarpals are unusually long and stout, 
with very strong articular extremities. The hands of the fossil man 
of La Chapelle were decidedly large and strong; but the thumb ap- 
pears to have been relatively shorter than at present. The articular 
facets of the bones that are preserved show some interesting peculiari- 
ties not generally present in man of today. 

The pelvis——The very incomplete pelvis is long (t.¢., high) in 
relation to its breadth ; but in general, as far as it can be judged from 
the bones present, it presented proportions and form similar to those 
of the pelves of modern man, especially those in which the sacrum 
is narrow. The bones were robust, massive. The ilia were rather 
flat. The great sciatic notch is deep and narrow. As far as repre- 
sented, the pelvic bones of the La Chapelle skeleton resemble exceed- 
ingly closely the pelvic bones of Neanderthal man. 

The femora.—The femora are in pieces. Carefully reconstructed 
by Boule, they show in all their characteristics close relation to the 
Neanderthal and Spy femora. The bones are stout, the extremities 
are large. The right and the left bones differ but slightly in strength. 
The shafts show uniform curvature forward, even a trace stronger 
apparently than that of the Neanderthal and Spy femora. The linea 
aspera is somewhat more marked than in Neanderthal and Spy. 
Platymery is wanting. Of the lower extremities of the femora there 
are but fragments, on which definite observations are difficult ; but 
what remains indicates the same characteristics of this part of the 
bone as exist in the Neanderthal and the Spy femora. 

The patellae——The two patellae of La Chapelle are well preserved. 

The right bone measures 4.6 in breadth, 3.9 in height, and 2.1 cm. 
in thickness. The bone is somewhat smaller than those of Spy No. 2 
and those of Krapina. 

The tibiae—The tibiae are very incomplete. They were relatively 
short and strong, and were not platycnemic, closely resembling those 
of Spy. The extremities were voluminous. The upper end shows 
a more marked retroversion backward than is present in the modern 
tibiae. The shaft shows but a slight lateral curvature in its upper 

The fibulae.—Present, the upper half of the shaft of the right bone. 
It is remarkable for its stoutness, and for its sub-cylindrical form 
which differs from those of modern bones. 

The astragalus—Present, the left bone only, somewhat damaged. 
It is relatively shorter, higher, and especially broader than the astrag- 
ali of present man of all races. The shortness of the bone is especially 


due to the shortness of its neck. In detail the bone presents several 
primitive characters. It resembles in general the astragali, as far as 
known, of the other Neanderthal skeletons. 

The calcaneus—Present, the left bone, seriously damaged; re- 
constructed with care by M. Boule. The bone is relatively long, broad, 
as well as high. The length is due especially to the heel part. The 
sustentaculum is considerably developed. The articular surfaces of 
the bone present some primitive features. The ligamentous insertions 
and grooves are all strongly marked. 

Bones of the feet—These bones are very defective. The metatarsals 
were evidently relatively short but stout, with large extremities ; that 
of the large toe was especially robust, more so than in the majority of 
human feet of today. 

General considerations —The general aspect of the body of the man 
of La Chapelle was somewhat different from that of recent man, the 
posture was less perfectly erect. The stature of the La Chapelle man, 
if estimated from the length of the humerus, may have been approxi- 
mately 163 cm., which would be near the average of the Neanderthal 
males estimated in a similar manner. But Boule is of the opinion that 
in view of the short spine and short tibia this estimate is much too 
high, and that the stature in life of the La Chapelle male was more 
probably about 155 cm. (Mém., 116-118.) 


Estimated stature in lifes =e ane ae ae eee een 155-163 cm. 
cm. cm. 
r. ie 
umerus:| Wengthomax.. cnc ae ele ae oe Bre 
Minimum circumference of shaft............... 72 
Amele:of torsion ss aii: hice 2 ois san nee en ae ae ee 148° 
umenro-temoraleindexeiscee eee eee een near 70.3 
Tibiae: Length, in position and without spine, 
estimatedis see ee ieee bare Meee Lee 34.0 
Astragalus: Length?) Acc. hess nee ee 5-7 
Hlelohtin isis saccotie Goan ano eae 3.5 
Breadth) acai lic sat ein eee ieee 5.3 
Culcancusvenesth max: approx... eee 8.0 
Breadth eh ey chk We Pe cay Me Ry ee 4.7 
Ba nd exe cei neta rares Ssh oe Enea 58.0 

1 In present man the average angle ranges from 134° to 162° (Boule, Mém., p. 125). 
2 Measurements by the method of Volkov, Les variations squeletiques du Sed cee les Pri- 
mates et dans les races humaines. Bull. et Mém. Soc. Anthrop., Paris, 1905. 


1. The cave of La Chapelle-aux-Saints. (After Boule.) 

2. The interior of the cave of La Chapelle-aux-Saints, with the fossa that 
contained the skeleton in the right background. 

VOL. 83, PL. 65 


(After Roule.) 

The La Chapelle skull. 


2. The La Chapelle skull, left side. (After Boule.) 


The endocranial cast of the La Chapelle skull. (After Boule. ) 

X\, 7 

89 “Id ‘€8 °10/ 




IVY ) 

"MOIA do} ‘[[nys 

atjodeyy ey 94} jo }SeO [eluetloopuod UL 





1. The cervical and upper dorsal vertebrae of 
the La Chapelle skeleton. 



x y 


2. The same as figure 1, compared with the same vertebrae of a Chimpanzee 
and a modern European. Note the direction of the spinous processes. (After 
Boule. ) 

Pen O) 

VOL. 83, 


ule. ) 


(After B 


f the lower extre 


The La Chapelle skeleton; bones 

= 7 
i} oy b 
ak 7 
% a a 
- Fs Am eel, 
: Yt ie eh 

i Tee 
iat a a Pi 
. as ee 
wes . a § = 
hy ; tree 
a rs my , 
I ee 
b soa Pale i 
: p 
- mo as 
. , “t ie 
2 Ae 
eee, fi 
be — : to 
} : 1 i 1 
7 t 
t re i* i ro 
@ on! 
1 A s 
‘ ’ ‘0, 
= +e 
1 ey ; 
’ ; 
1. 4 
- 12 
: \ 2 o 
w - 
“7 ¢, =~ 2 
ier ) 
Th, t 
i j a a af 
—_ Y ; 
we i 
y ' 
' a 
1. ara 
ot! : ~ ' 
nA a ‘a 7) 



The cranial capacity of the skull is calculated by Professor Boule 
at 1,600-1,626 cc., which is above that of the other Neanderthal 
crania and also above the average man of today. A cast of the endo- 
cranial cavity of the La Chapelle skull shows a large brain, but low. 
In general the brain was quite human, but showed numerous primitive 

The morphologic characteristics of the brain of the man of La 
Chapelle-aux-Saints are summarized thus by Boule and Anthony :* 

1. Characteristics distinctly human: Large absolute volume; pre- 
dominance of the left hemisphere; the presence of two presylvian 
branches, and of a human system of opercula. 

2. Characteristics of simian nature, or intermediary between those 
of the anthropoids and man. These are the more numerous and com- 
prise the general form; the general simplicity and gross aspect of 
the convolutions ; the position and direction of the sylvian and rolan- 
dic fissures ; the differentiation and length of the parieto-occipital fis- 
sure; the reduction of the frontal lobes, especially in their anterior 
region; the accentuation of the frontal beak or keel; the primitive 
character of the third frontal convolution which was probably devoid 
of the basal part; the presence of a much developed sulcus lunatus ; 
the spread apart of the cerebellar hemispheres ; the width and exposi- 
tion of the vermis ; and the direction of the medulla oblongata. 

“On the whole the brain of the fossil man of La Chapelle-aux 
Saints is already a human brain by the abundance of its cerebral 
matter. But this matter still lacks the higher organization which 
characterizes that of present man.” 

The writer feels that inferior characteristics of the brain may by 
the above statements be somewhat overemphasized, and that most if 
not all of them could individually be duplicated in the more primitive 
brains of today. Nevertheless it is clear that while the brain of the 
La Chapelle man was large its differentiation was not highly ad- 
vanced, and the all-important proportion of gray and white matter 
may have been quite different. 


“La Ferrassie ’ is the name of a rock-shelter close to a hamlet of 
that name, near Bugue, Dordogne, France. The locality belongs to 
the general region of the Vezere and Les Eyzies. In this rather 

*L’Anthropologie, Paris, Vol. 22, No. 2, p. 196, 1911; see also Boule’s Mémoir. 


exposed rock-shelter M. Peyrony with some associates discovered in 
September, 1909, a human skeleton of Neanderthal affinities. The 
discovery was announced before the Academie des Inscriptions, 
Noy. 10, 1909, and was shortly afterward published in the Revue de 
l’Ecole d’Anthropologie.’ 

M. Peyrony had been exploring the rock-shelter with its prehistoric 
deposits for ten years. The excavations showed that the spacious 
shelter had been inhabited for a very long time by successive pre- 
historic populations, and that each group of these left behind a layer 
of its kitchen refuse with its special stone industry. From its top to 
the base it was possible to identify the following horizons : 

. Upper Aurignacian ; 
. Middle Aurignacian ; 
. Lower Aurignacian ; 

. Mousterian ; 
5. Acheulian. 

hWD 4 

After the middle Aurignacian the roof of the shelter fell down, and 
between and on the rocks accumulated the débris of the upper Aurig- 
nacians. Above this was a layer of over 12 feet of humus and gravel, 
to the surface. 

The first skeleton was discovered by M. Peyrony in the lower part 
of the Mousterian deposits. The explorer, with Professor Capitan 
and another companion, removed just enough of the bones to satisfy 
themselves that they were human and then notified Professors Boule, 
Cartailhac and Breuil, with several more local prehistorians, of the 
find ; and it was in the presence of these, on September 27, that the 
skeleton was carefully uncovered and disengaged from its deposits. 
The deposits and the condition of the skeleton in situ, when cleaned, 
are shown in plate 72. 

The several cultural layers of the shelter were easily distinguished 
at sight, owing to their different coloration, and definitely so by their 
' fauna and industry. The Mousterian layer, besides its characteristic 
stone industry, yielded an abundance of the bones of the bison, the 
stag, and the horse, with occasional parts of other later Quaternary 

As the explorers removed the upper layers and most of the Mous- 
terian deposit, they found three flat stones, placed one above the skull, 
the two others over the shoulders or chest of the skeleton. Over the 
whole space enclosing the skeleton the deposits contained a consid- 

‘Capitan and Peyrony, Deux squelettes humains au milieu de foyers de 
l’époque moustérienne.. Rev. Ecol. Anthrop. Paris, Vol. 19, pp. 402-409, 1909. 


erably larger number of large fragments of animal bones than were 
found elsewhere. A piece of a bone lying just above the skeleton 
shows a series of fine intentional gravings, reminding one of the 
graved bones of the Aurignacian layers. The accumulations about the 
skeleton contained also a large number of very well worked flints of 
the Mousterian type. Such flints were found above, about, and even 
beneath the skeleton, those beneath being mingled with flints showing 
Acheulian industry. 

The work uncovered a whole skeleton, in position, although nu- 
merous parts, particularly of the thorax and the spine, were destroyed 
by decay or damaged by the pressure of the superimposed deposits. 
The skeleton lay on its back, slightly inclined to the left, and in a con- 
tracted position, with the legs bent against the thighs and the thighs 
half flexed upon the body, the left arm extended by the side, the 
right flexed. The skull lay on its left side, and the lower jaw was con- 
siderably separated in front from the upper as if the mouth had been 
widely open. All the bones of the skeleton, even though damaged, were 
still in their proper anatomical positions; only the smaller bones of 
the feet and the right hand had been displaced, probably by small 
animals. The bones were removed with all possible precautions, in 
some cases with blocks of the deposits, and were taken to Professor 
Boule’s laboratory in the Paris Museum of Natural History, where 
eventually they were cleaned and studied and where they are now 

The consensus of opinion of those present was that the remains 
represented a regular intentional human burial. The three flat stones 
and the broken animal bones had probably been placed designedly 
over the skeleton. It was believed, however, that there had been no 
burial fossa, the body having been placed on the old (Acheulian) sur- 
face and covered with broken bones, débris, and perhaps skins and 
branches, to become in the course of time further buried by kitchen 
refuse and newer accumulations. 

The explorations by M. Peyrony and his associates in the La 
Ferrassie rock-shelter continued, the work resulting within the next 
year in additional discoveries of human remains. These consisted of 
another skeleton of an adult, in poorer condition; and of several 
burials of infants, in which however the human bones have mostly 

The second skeleton was discovered in September, 1910. It lay in 
the middle of the same Mousterian layer, five feet from the rocky 
wall of the shelter, and with the head only 20 inches from that of the 


first skeleton. The skeleton lay at the same level and in the same 
axis as the first one, but in an inverse position, the heads approaching 
each other, the rest of the bodies extending in opposite directions. 
The body had also been flexed and lay on its right side, the hands 
resting on the knees. 

The bones of the lower members were fairly well preserved, those 
of the upper limbs only partially; of the thorax there were but a 
few remnants.’ The burials of the infants came to light in subsequent 

In 1923 M. Peyrony very kindly accompanied the writer to the 
shelter, where a portion of all the layers has been left as an archeo- 
logical monument. At that time it was still possible to discern three 
shallow, slightly darker depressions that originally contained the 
bodies of the infants. In M. Peyrony’s opinion, all the subjects found 
in the shelter received intentional burial, though its exact nature was 
still a subject for speculation. 

The remnants of the second adult skeleton are also preserved under 
Professor Boule’s care in the Paris Museum of Natural History. The 
specimens have not yet been described separately, or exhaustively. 
They are reported upon partially by M. Boule, but the data concerning 
them are scattered in his Mémoir on the fossil man of La Chapelle 
and in his book on “ L’Homme fossile.” * 



All that can be done in describing the specimens is to utilize the 
partial notes of Professor Boule, adding to them such observations 
as were possible to the writer in his brief views of the otherwise still 
unavailable originals. 

Skull No. 1, relatively well preserved, is plainly that of a male; 
skull No. 2, defective, is that of a female. The male was about 
middle aged, the female adult, age uncertain. The brain portion. of 
the male skull is striking through its large size; it appears to be at 
least as. large as the La Chapelle. It belonged to a male taller but 
somewhat less muscular than the latter specimen. The second skull 

was evidently of but moderate proportions and belonged to a short 

: Capitan and Peyrony, Station préhistorique de la Ferrassie. Rev. anthropo- 
logique, Vol. 22, pp. 29-50, 76-99, 1912. 

* Boule, M., L’Homme fossile de La Chapelle-aux-Saints, Paris, 1913. Fossil 
Men, London, 1923. 


In form the skull of La Ferrassie No. 1 resembles in many respects 
that of La Chapelle, but it also differs from the latter in some points, 
including a somewhat less primitive face. The vault is large and 
spacious, and in all important respects much like that of the La Cha- 
pelle cranium. The supraorbital arch, the forehead, the low vault, the 
occiput, the far-back location of the parietal fossae, are all close to 
those of the La Chapelle. The mastoids are of only moderate size. 
The basal parts of the temporal bone are badly damaged in No. 1, but 
in No. 2 show characteristics like those in the Spy and Krapina skulls. 

The face presents, below the heavy arches, similarly inclined orbits 
as in La Chapelle, similar relatively small and sloping malars with 
broad frontal processes and stout zygomae, and similar fullness of 
the suborbital (canine) surface. The nose is broad. The facial prog- 
nathism is not excessive. The dental arch is large, the palate ap- 
proaches U-shape. The teeth, all present, are stout; the crowns are 
worn, especially anteriorly where the pulp cavities are exposed. 

The lower jaw, although large, is distinctly nearer to the modern 
type than are the other Neanderthal jaws with the exception of Spy 
No. 1. It shows clearly the beginning of a chin. The jaw is neither 
very high nor very thick, measuring 3.3 cm. in height at the vertical 
passing through the mental foramen, and 1.5 cm. in thickness at the 
same section. The mandibular angle is 109°. The ramus is broad ; the 
region of the angle is still rather primitive, approaching, though not 
equalling, the form observed in the La Chapelle jaw ; but the sigmoid 
notch is well developed, as in modern man. The condyle is stout and 
of the same dimensions as in La Chapelle. There is still a marked 
space between the last molars and the anterior border of the ramus 
on each side, as in other early jaws. The form of the lower dental 
arch of La Ferrassie No, 1 approaches that of the upper arch. When 
the jaws were closed the upper and lower incisors met exactly. 

The intracranial cast of the male skull from La Ferrassie is reported 

‘by M. Boule to be “at least as large as that of the specimen of La 
Chapelle-aux-Saints.” * 


There is no complete description of the bones of the La Ferrassie 
skeletons, but numerous notes and data on the parts are scattered 
through Professor Boule’s Mémoir on the La Chapelle skeleton, 
with some additional notes in his book on “ Fossil Men.” The two 
skeletons show marked sexual differences, No. 1 being that of a 

* Fossil Men, p. 473, 1923. 


fairly tall male (for a Neanderthaler), while No. 2 is that of a low- 
statured woman. Many parts of both skeletons are absent or more or 
less imperfect. The bones that remain resemble in essentials the 
bones of the La Chapelle, Neanderthal, and Spy skeletons ; there are, 
however, various differences, some of the parts such as the scapulae 
being even a trace more primitive than the corresponding bones of 
other Neanderthalers, while others show more advance towards recent 
types. The main details follow: 

Humeri—More slender in both skeletons than in Neanderthal, Spy, 
and a Chapelle; shafts less cylindrical. The male and especially the 
female humeri show above the middle a noticeable lateral bend. The 
male humeri are very perceptibly longer, the female markedly shorter 
than those of other Neanderthalers. The ends are robust; and all 
the bones show good sized olecranon perforations. 

Radii.—Pronounced curvature of whole shaft, especially in the 
male ; cup large, shallow ; extremities relatively stout. 

Ulnae.—Shape of shaft much more prismatic in both skeletons than 
in the Neanderthaler ; flattening of upper part of shaft less marked, 
especially in the female, than in La Chapelle and Spy; olecranon 

Clavicles—Male only. Relatively very long but not massive—over 
54% of the length of the humerus (highest modern about 52%). 

Scapulae.—A portion of the right scapula of the male shows on 
its dorsal surface a strong oblique ridge running from the base of the 
glenoid in the direction of the inferior angle; this is a primitive 
feature rarely approached in modern bones. 

Ribs—Male ; less stout and more flat than those of La Chapelle, 
nearer to modern forms. 

Hands.—Not yet reported in detail. Left hand of male nearly 
complete. Relative length of thumb in both skeletons nearer to 
modern than in La Chapelle. Fingers short, in both individuals. 

Femora.—Bones robust, ends stout; anterior curvature of whole 
shaft, as in other Neanderthalers, somewhat less marked in the male, 
pronounced in the female; linea aspera better developed than in La 
Chapelle in the male, less so in the female ; subtrochanteric flattening 
moderate, about as in the Spy femora. 

The neck in the male bones is about as long as it is in modern 
femora; in the female it is very short (as in the La Combe Aurig- 
nacian skeleton). The digital fossa, preserved in the female, is large 
and deep. The lower part of the shaft is somewhat more cylindrical 


in both skeletons than in the femora of today ; and the popliteal surface 
in bones of both individuals is slightly convex, as in the other Neander- 

Tibiae.—Male bones, no heads; female, retroversion of head about 
as in La Chapelle, articular facets large, shallow. The bones are not 

Fibulae.—Male; robust, relatively large extremities; shaft more 
flattened than in La Chapelle. 

Astragalus—* The astragalus or ankle-bone is short, high, and 
broad. The head is much bent, denoting that the great toe was widely 
separated from its neighbours. The articular surface for the scaphoid 
points to a much depressed instep. The malleolar facets for the 


Fic. 26.—Scapulae of Neanderthal and La Ferrassie compared. (After Boule.) 

tibia and fibula show a development comparable to that observed in 
apes. In its extent, the facet for the fibula recalls that of anthropoid 
types... . it is the astragalus of a walking mammal, which, how- 
ever, has retained many relics of a former climbing state.” * 

Calcaneus—Voluminous, stocky, long; sustentaculum much de- 
veloped ; articular surfaces more primitive than at present. 

Bones of the feet.—Indicate a considerable separation of the first 
toe; the scaphoid is thick; the metatarsals are robust and with stout 
ends ; the first metatarsal is relatively voluminous in the male, with 
shaft flattened and ovoid as in apes rather than man; in the female 
the bone is relatively short. 

Pathological (Hrdiiéka).—Male: Lower part of one femur and a 
tibia show periostitis with slight osteitis—much as in syphilis. 

* Boule, M., Fossil Men, pp. 220-221, 1923. 



Eighteen years have elapsed since the discovery of the La Ferrassie 
skeletons, yet they remain in general but very imperfectly known, for 
what has been reported on them by M. Boule is scattered in his reports 
on the La Chapelle skeleton and on those of the Neanderthal man in 
general. There are no adequate photographs, and no casts of the re- 
mains. Professor Boule has kindly and repeatedly shown the originals 
to the writer and other scientific men; but this is insufficient for the 
student of early man and could readily result in erroneous impressions. 
The causes of the regrettable delays are not known. They cannot, 
it seems, be due to Professor Boule who knows thoroughly, as shown 
in his work on the La Chapelle skeleton, the great value to all serious 
students of early man of reliable photographs and casts, and of the 
ready availability of such originals for scientific study. 

The two La Ferrassie skeletons are of especial importance, on one 
hand through their. many characteristics which connect them clearly 
with the Neanderthalers, and on the other hand through a series of 
features in which they approach more modern man. 

The burials themselves are of importance. M. Boule suggests 
(“* Fossil Men,” p. 190, 1923) that “ It would appear there are present 
here the bone remains of a whole family, killed by accident, perhaps 
beneath a land-slip.” This opinion is apparently not borne out by the 
details reported by Capitan and Peyrony. There were no signs of any 
such fall as could have killed the whole family; the infant burials 
were apart from those of the adults and near each other ; the adults 
lay in a line, with heads near each other; the three flat stones over 
the male skeleton were evidently selected and lay in a definite order ; 
both the bodies were flexed, as at La Chapelle—a feature that pre- 
vailed from the paleolithic to neolithic and even later burials; their 
positions otherwise indicate a laying down of a body rather than an 
accidental burial ; and the skeletons were not covered with the débris of 
a fall, but with intentionally broken bones, implements, and human 

Neither can the opinion of Capitan and Peyrony, that the bodies 
were placed superficially in the corner of the cave, covered with only 
skins and branches, and left thus until covered by new refuse of 
habitation, be reasonably sustained. The decomposition of the bodies 
in a shelter of this nature would have made the stay of their relatives 
impossible, and if they left, the bodies would have been devoured or 
torn to pieces by the hyenas or other animals. 

(‘Auoisag pue ueyded Joyy) ‘“Auorsag pue ‘ovypieyreg ‘ueyided) ‘[inerg ‘oynog—Aued 
-IU0d paysInsurjsip & Surmoys ‘uozyays }stY 9y} JO ATIAOISIP oY} Jozye APJAOYS JoYoYys-YIOI aissesso,f BY] YL 



The first (¢) skeleton at La Ferrassie, before removal. (After Capitan and 
Peyrony. ) 


1. Skull of male skeleton from La Ferrassie, seen in profile. (After Boule.) 

2. Lower jaw, seen in profile, of the man from La Ferrassie. Three-fourths 
natural size. Paleontological Gallery of the French National Museum of Natural 
History. (After Boule.) 


All the evidence indicates that the inhumations at La Ferrassie were 
true intentional burials, in shallow but sufficient fossae, and covered 
at the time of the burial with the bones and other materials that were 
found above the skeletons. 

Shallow burials in occupied caves or beneath the floor of a dwelling, 
of infants and even adults, in very much the same postures, are well 
known to the American archeologists, and these cannot but be forcibly 
impressed by the close resemblance of the conditions at La Ferrassie 
to what they have witnessed over and over again in old Indian caves 
and habitations. 

The Mousterian layer containing the La Ferrassie skeletons was, 
however, but 50 cm. (19 ins.) deep. Could the inhabitants of the 
shelter have buried the bodies in such a thin deposit ? 

There are several possible explanations. The deposits, before be- 
coming as packed down as they eventually did, were doubtless con- 
siderably thicker. Such packing is well known to prehistorians in 
other cases. A portion of the deposits may have been removed by 
wind, water, or sweepings. Or, the bodies were introduced later, per- 
haps during the lower Aurignacian occupation. The incised bone 
would seem to lend some support to this supposition. This thought, 
of course, meets opposition in the common belief that all the Neander- 
thalers disappeared before the Aurignacians, Yet next to nothing is 
known as to the physical type of the earliest Aurignacians. It is not 
impossible that, when better known, not a few of them may be found 
to resemble more or less closely their Mousterian or Neanderthal 
predecessors—perhaps ancestors. Such thoughts are of course quite 


On October 16, 1911, Dr. Henri Martin, well-known physician 
and prehistorian of Paris, reported to the Académie des Sciences of 
Paris the find of a very remarkable ancient human skeleton at La 
Quina, Department of Charente, in France.’ ‘“ We have discovered,” 
he says, “on the 18th of September, at La Quina, a human skeleton of 
the Neanderthal type.” It lay in a horizontal position, in clayey sand, 
at the distance of 4.5 m. from the base of a cliff. The deposits in 
which it rested represent the ancient muddy bed of the near-by 
stream Voultron, and belong, archeologically, to the lower Mousterian 
epoch. The clayey sand was covered by débris from the cliff portion, 
which in former times extended shelflike over the stream. 

* Martin, Henri, Sur un squelette humain de l’époque moustérienne trouvé en 
Charente. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, Vol. 153, p. 728, Tort. 



The skeleton lay 80 cm. (2.6 ft.) deep in the sand, and was not 
surrounded by any objects which would indicate an intentional burial. 
Its location and position seemed to show that the body had been de- 
posited where it lay accidentally. The clayey sand contained a few 
disseminated worked stones and a few bones that had been utilized 
by man, but showed none of the handsome pieces which characterized 
the upper Mousterian epoch. The skeleton is, in all probability, ref- 
erable to the earliest part of the middle Quaternary. 

The remains have suffered from prolonged submersion and pressure, 
as a result of which the cranial bones were disjointed and in part 
broken; but from the first instant it could readily be seen that the 
jaws, particularly the mandible, were heavy ; and the teeth were large 
in size, besides showing other remarkable features. 

The easily accessible prehistoric station of La Quina is known from 
the earlier days of prehistoric research in France. As early as 1873 
excavations were carried on there by Gustave Chauvet; and in 1896 
he published an account of them (Bull. Soc. archeol. et hist. Charente, 
D2 313; 1800): 

Dr. Henri Martin began its exploration in 1905. In 1906 he an- 
nounced before the Société prehistorique, the finding, among the 
upper Mousterian industry of the site, of phalanges of prehistoric 
horses, bovidae and large deer, and some lower ends of animal 
humeri that showed utilization by man (as anvils and perhaps ham- 
mers in the working of flints).” A little later in the same year and be- 
fore the same society, Dr. Martin reports on some remarkably well 
made flint implements from the same depoits, and on the evident dif- 
ferentiation of the stone industry towards forms of more advanced 
varieties. In 1907 Dr. Martin reports on new excavations at La 
Quina* and gives details as to the stratigraphy of the deposits. 

The entire deposit exists in the wooded slope—in places a sloping 
terrace—lining the southwestern limestone cliffs of the small valley 
of the Voultron. The cliffs themselves, it was learned later, contain 
some caves. The mass of deposits at the site explored by Dr. Martin 
is shown in plates 74 and 75. It consisted of the following: 

Surface vegetal earth overgrown with bushes and trees, 40 cm. 

A thick layer of fallen rocks and débris—1.20 to 5 m. [The great amount of 

fallen rock, among which are very large blocks, indicates the former existence 
here of one or more rock-shelters, such as found about Les Eyzies—Hrdlicka. ] 

*Ossements utilisés par L’ Homme moustérien de la station de La Quina. Bull. 
Soc. préhist. France, 1906. 

* Industrie moustérienne perfectionnée station de La Quina. bid. 

* Nouvelle coupe de la station moustérienne de La Quina. L’ Homme préhistor- 
ique, Vol. 3, No. 11. 



No. I on the chart shows the upper sandy portion of the Mousterian deposits ; 

No. 2 is a large argilaceous layer with high class Mousterian implements and 
utilized bones ; 

No. 3, argilaceous sand, with Mousterian industry ; 

No. 4, a thin layer of fine sand without either industrial or faunal remains; 

No. 5, gravels, with first horizon of Mousterian industry ; 

Nos. 11-12, layers of waterworn limestone fragments, without industry. 

In 1908 appeared Dr. Martin’s first report on the fauna of La 
Quina, and in this communication * is found the first report of human 
skeletal remains, in the form of a pair of astragali. These astragali 
were reported upon by Dr. Martin with handsome illustrations, in 
1910. The bones were found to differ from modern ones in the short- 
ness of the neck, internal deviation of the head and its marked rota- 
tion outward, in the expansion and large development of the susten- 
taculum, and in some other particulars. The bones are larger in all 
dimensions than those of modern Europeans; they measure in maxi- 
mum length 5.1, in maximum breadth 4.7, and in maximum height 
3.1 cm. A number of other measurements are also given. 

At the same meeting Dr. Martin reported in detail on the animal 
bones from the La Quina deposits that show human work.* The 
utilized bones include anvils, hammers, compressors, polished pieces, 
awls, artificially perforated phalanges, and bones with some inten- 
tional gravings. At about this time appeared also Dr. Martin’s larger 
study on the evolution of the Mousterian industry of La Quina.’ 

In 1911 came the first report on the find of the first human skeleton. 
In the Comptes rendus of the Academy of Science, Paris (T. 153, 
pp. 728-30), Dr. Martin gives a brief report of the discovery with a 
photograph of the skull im situ. 

The skeleton, in Dr. Martin’s opinion, was plainly “in place ” and 
had suffered no disturbance, so that it was possible to refer it to the 
base of the middle Quaternary. The skull was believed to have 
suffered a prolonged maceration as a result of which the cranial bones 
were disjointed, but their preservation was such that the cranium will 
be easy of reconstruction. The skull, as far as it was possible to judge 
at the time of the report, appeared to offer all the primitive characters 

“La faune moustérienne de La Quina. C. R. Assoc. franc. Acad. Sci., pp. 
727-730, 1908. 

* Astragale humain du moustérien moyen de la Quina. Bull. Soc, préhist. 
France, 1910, pp. 391-397. 

“Traces humaines laissées sur les os a l’époque moustérienne (La Quina). 
C. R. Assoc. fr. Acad. Sci., 1910, pp. 142-145. 

“Recherches sur I’évolution du Mousterien dans la gisement de La Quina. 


of the Neanderthalers, and perhaps even more. The remains were 
generously promised as a gift to the Paris Museum of Natural His- 
tory, where they are at present. 

That same year (1911), Dr. Martin made a more detailed report 
on the skull to the Sociétié préhistorique, which is followed, in 
1912, by a second and third, and in 1913 by a fourth report on the 
cranium,’ with many details on the now reconstructed specimen, many 
measurements, some discussion of the opinions held by the discoverer, 
especially as to the burial of the skeleton, which he strongly holds to 
have been accidental, and finally an interesting effort at reconstruc- 
tion of the head of the La Quina woman—for the skeleton is now 
regarded as that of a female. 

Meanwhile, in 1911, Dr. Martin discusses again ~ the nature of the 
La Quina deposits and their archeological contents, some of which 
show forms that seem to some observers to be perhaps Aurignacian. 
Of the two interesting paragraphs in conclusion the first reads: 

But here, as in many other deposits of early man, there are evidences of transi- 
tion and of precursor-implements which are of the highest interest, for they 
denote a transformation, a progress towards the better; at the same time 
certain persistences, such as those of the coups-de-poing, indicate simply the 
prolonged use of a good tool.* 

Towards the end of 1912 Dr. Martin enumerates, in a brief report 
to the Academy of Sciences in Paris,’ the human skeletal remains 
found in the La Quina deposits up to that date. They comprised : 

Year Layer Parts 
1908 C2 2 astragali, evidently of same skeleton. 
Biehl B2 Fragment of an occipital. 
1910 Ce A dorsal vertebra. 
IQII C2 2 lower molars, of probably the same individual. 
ye B3 Skeleton. 
1912 B2 Piece of a parietal. 
G2 Fragment of right frontal, with portion of the supraorbital 
Ci Fragment of left frontal (the two may not be from the same 
G2 Lower jaw. 

* Bull. Soc. préhist. France, 1911 Rep., 12 pp., 3 pls.; 1912 Rep., 36 pp., 3 pls.; 
1912 Rep., 8 pp., 1 pl.; 1913 Rep., 4 pp. Another brief note on the “ Skull of the 
Mousterian fossil man of La Quina” is found in the C. R. Assoc. fr. Acad. Sci., 
PP. 537-538, 1912. 

*Les couches du gisement de La Quina et leur age. Sixiéme Congrés pré- 
historique de France. 1911 Rep., 4 pp. 

*“ Mais ici, comme dans beaucoup d’autres gisements, il y a des termes de 
passage et des outils précurseurs, qui sont du plus haut intérét, car ils dénotent 


These remains appeared to Dr. Martin to have proceeded from 
nine skeletons. All the remains showed Neanderthal affinities. None, 
he believed, were from intentional burial; there were no traces of 
cannibalism. . 

A further report by Dr. Martin on the discovery of fossil man of 
La Quina, in 1912, contains some interesting passages that deserve 
to be quoted in full. In these the author says (pp. 63-64) : 

At the base of the [La Quina] deposit we have found flint implements with 
very simple flaking, while at their top the work reaches a greater perfection; 
this modification in the industry proves that the Mousterian period was very 
long and that a palpable cultural progress was realized during the period. 

Why not then admit that the author of this progress has also himself become 
perfected on the spot, and that his procedure as well as his work became more 
delicate? It is surely rational to admit that his dawning intelligence augmented 
his cerebral mass. The bestial aspect left his physiognomy, his traits became 
finer—all this meaning progress towards present conditions..... We feel 
authorized to say that according to the present state of our knowledge, this 
Neanderthal race, which eventually disappeared, still manifests itself occasion- 
ally by atavism, in exceptional development of the supraorbital arches ; but this 
ancestral stigma is no more accompanied by other characteristics so peculiar to 
primitive man. 

In 1913, Dr. Martin reports on the robustness of the La Quina and 
other Neanderthal lower jaws.’ He has developed a promising new 
graphic technique for the presentation of his results. The Neanderthal 
mandibles show considerable uniformity in strength. 

For the next few years Dr. Martin devoted himself as much as 
practicable to further explorations at La Quina, and to the preparation 
of his final memoirs. But the war intervened and he became a surgeon 
in the army. Nevertheless a supervision of the deposits was carried 
on by Mme. Martin and one of the young sons, a happy result of 
which was the discovery, on August 23, 1915, of a unique skull of a 

une transformation, un acheminement vers le mieux; de méme certaines per- 
sistances, celles des coups-de-poing par exemple, indiquent simplement l’usage 
prolongé d’un bon outil. 

“Plus tard, lorsque j’aborderai l'étude des nombreuses formes de silex re- 
cueillies depuis six ans, il me faudra décrire des pointes avec des crans, et 
j'espere que ce mot ne fera pas naitre chez les archeologues étrangers l’idée 
d’introduire a La Quina du Solutréen supérieur.” 

*Répartition des ossements humains trouvés dans le gisement moustérien de 
La Quina. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, Vol. 155, pp. 982-983, 1912. 

* A propos de la découverte de l’homme fossile de la Quina. Rev. études an- 
ciennes, Bord., Vol. 14, pp. 61-64, I pl., 1912. 

* A propos de la robusticité du maxillaire inférieur de l-homme Néanderthalien. 
Bull. Soc. préhist. France, 8 pp., 1913, reprint. 


Neanderthal child. The report of the discovery in the form of a 
letter from Mme. Martin which reached the Doctor in a military 
hospital reads as follows: “ Asa result of a falling down of some of 
the deposits we have seen appear, in the course of the diggings, the 
skull of an infant. It was taken out with the block of surrounding 
earth and transported to the laboratory in Peyrat ”—Peyrat being the 
summer chateau of the Martin family, a little over a mile from the 
excavations. The skull was found in the deposits of the upper Mous- 
terian. There were no marks of a regular burial. Judging from its 
position the skull is somewhat less ancient than the skeleton found 
in IQIT. 

The first report on the new specimen appears in the Bulletins et 
Mémoires de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris, in 1920 (pp. 113- 
125). Actually the skull was the eighteenth separate piece of human 
skeletal remains found in the Mousterian deposits of La Quina. The 
same report gives a good illustration of the skull as contrasted with 
the skull of a modern child. The interesting specimen has belonged 
evidently to a child about eight years of age. The skull is fairly large 
but relatively low, and approaching the Neanderthal skulls in type. 
The supraorbital arches are not yet strongly developed, though much 
more indicated than they are in a modern male child of that age. 

After giving detailed descriptions and numerous measurements on 
the specimen, Dr. Martin concludes: “ By its form and other char- 
acters the skull offers the infantile stage of the Neanderthal type. While 
still presenting numerous primitive features the skull is marked by its 
good cranial capacity. The specimen enables us to see that the specific 
characters of the Neanderthal man became accentuated quite early 

In August, 1921, at the meeting of the French Association for the 
Advancement of Science,’ Dr. Martin reports still an additional find 
of interest, from the deposits of La Quina, consisting of a neander- 
thaloid patella, which he designates as No. 19 of the human skeletal 
remains in the deposits. This piece was found in the Mousterian 
layers in 1920. It differs from recent patellae by its stout summit, and 
by the conformation of its posterior surface which is concave and 
lacks the median ridge. The bone is also relatively high in relation to 
its breadth. 

Principal measurements: Height, 4.8; breadth, 4.3 cm. The bone 
was a trace higher, but considerably narrower than the patellae of 
Spy No. 2. 

“Rouen Session: Etude d’une rotule humain trouvée dans le moustérien de 
La Quina, pp. 955-958. 


Partly before and partly since the preceding publication, Dr. Martin 
has finished the three volumes of his detailed studies. Regrettably 
these volumes are not as well known outside of France as they deserve 
to be. They contain not merely all the separately published studies 
but also much additional work with many illustrations. The last 
volume is devoted especially to the human skeletal remains. 

This volume was published in Paris in 1923. Here in 260 pages, 
Dr. Martin enumerates the skeletal finds up to date, and then deals 
exhaustively with the La Quina skeleton, 

The remains comprise now the following: 

H 1, H 1'—1008, layer C 3: 2 astragali, right and left, found at a short dis- 
tance from each other; of same proportions and belonging probably to the same 

H 2—1008, layer B 2: Fragment of an occipital, with the right half of the 
occipital torus. 

H 3—10910, layer C 2: A dorsal vertebra, near the oth. 

HT 4, H 4'—1o11, layer C 2: Lower left M3 and lower right M2; found 
about 3 feet apart. 

AH 5—1o11, layer B 3: The human skeleton; skull with lower jaw, cervical 
vertebra, humerus, femora. 

H 6—1012, layer B 2: Fragments of a parietal. 

H 7—1012, layer C 2: Fragment of the left frontal, with a part of the supra- 
orbital arch. 

H 9—10922, layer C 2: Lower jaw, with 5 molars; chin less sloping; teeth 
in very good condition. 

H 1o—1913, layer B 3: A left temporal; very robust; found 3 feet above 
skeleton H 5. 

H 11—1913: Occipital, fragment of the left region; occipital torus developed. 

H 12—10913: M2, fragment of left frontal, with supraorbital arch (broken) 
and orbital roof. 

H 13—1013; M2, fragment of a parietal. 

74—1908; H 1: Portion of a left parietal of a young subject. 

15—1913, layer B 2: Posterior part of the right parietal of a young subject. 
16—1913, layer C 2: Fragment of a left temporal. 

17—1913, layer C1: Left lower canine. 

18—1915, layer C 2: Skull of a child, aged about 8 years; discovered by 
the wife and a son of Dr. Martin; the lower jaw missing. 

H 19—10920, layer B 3: Left patella. 

H 21', 22’, 23'—1921, layer C 2: 4 teeth (left upper M2, left upper M3, 
right upper Pm, root of a canine) ; these four teeth were found together. 

For the many details of Dr. Martin’s erudite study of the skeleton, 
the student must consult the original. The main conclusions are as 

Gog ye 

Sex: Uncertain; certain indications and a relative slenderness of the bones 
would indicate a female, but the heavy supraorbital arches, zygomata, jaws, and 
teeth are not female. = 

*L’homme fossile de La Quina, 260 pp., numerous illustrations, Paris, 1923. 


Age: The individual was a fairly young adult. 

Type: One of the most characteristic of the Neanderthal variety. 
Stature: Moderate, not perfectly vertical. 

Brain: Small, poorly developed anteriorly. 

Teeth and Jaws: Much stronger than modern. 

Musculature: Powerful, especially that of the neck and the jaws. 
Great Toe: Apparently opposable. 


In 1912, thanks to Dr. Martin, the writer was able to see, in Dr. 
Martin’s laboratory in Paris, the originals of the La Quina skeleton 
discovered a year before. In 1921 he saw the child’s skull in Dr. 
Martin’s laboratory at Peyrat. In 1923 he had the good fortune for 
eight days to be the guest of Dr. and Mme. Martin at Peyrat, and to 
participate in the exploration of extensive Aurignacian deposits on the 
slopes of La Quina not far to the right of the Mousterian site. Finally 
in 1927, thanks to M. Boule, he was able to glance once more over the 
originals, both the adult and the child, now preserved in the Musée 
d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris. Moreover, through the personal favor of 
Dr. Martin he has been enabled to obtain excellent casts of most of 
the remains as found, and of both of the reconstructed skulls. For 
all of this he wishes once more to express his most grateful acknowl- 

Dr. Martin (pl. 74) is one of the most persevering as well as 
able workers in Irench prehistory. His summer chateau is near La 
Quina, and for over 20 years, except during the war, he has spent most 
of his spare time in the exploration of the deposits and in the cleaning, 
repair, and study of both the cultural and the skeletal remains that 
were recovered. Of the cultural and faunal remains there were vast 
quantities, reaching into the hundreds of thousands ; yet every flint and 
every fragment passed through Dr. Martin’s hands and was ex- 
amined, the only assistance obtained, outside of labor, being that of 
members of his own family; and all this work at his own expense. 
May Prehistory have more Henri Martins! 

The deposits in the slope and terrace at La Quina, taking that name 
in a broader sense, are still far from being exhausted, though as the 
work extends beyond the confines of the large original Mousterian 
site, the returns become much scarcer. It is not, however, impossible 
that new industrial foci may be found in these slopes which extend for 
a considerable distance along the face of the calcareous cliffs to the 
southwest of the Voultron. In 1922 considerable excavation was 
carried on in the upper parts of the slope to the left of the Mousterian 


site by the American School of Prehistoric Research. These excava- 
tions uncovered and emptied a moderate sized cave in the rocks—one 
of several in the cliffs—and moved a great deal of the earth in front 
of it, but without material results. Since 1923 the excavations have 
slowed down, other sites claiming Dr. Martin’s attention. 

The excavations of La Quina have been visited by probably more 
prehistorians than any other site of primitive man with the exception 
of those in the Vezére valley. The “ station” is easily accessible and 
relatively easily worked, though all the work must be done in the open 
and is made difficult by the great quantities of fallen rock and débris 
from what were probably in olden times more or less overhanging 

The amount of archeological material and bones of animals re- 
covered from La Quina is such that it has supplied many European 
and even some of our American museums. The archeological material 
is clearly Mousterian, and in general shows much differentiation as 
well as improvement from below upwards, but a distinction of definite 
strata, except in the case of the very lowest one, seems difficult. There 
was evidently a very long continued occupation attended with local 
developments. | 

Of the more especially interesting cultural traces, Dr. Martin 
mentions the find of a perforated canine tooth of a fox and also a 
perforated phalanx of a reindeer, both of which evidently served for 
pendants; pieces of black oxide of manganese, showing deep rub- 
bing and indicating the use of the black pigment for some purpose ; 
and on a series of the incisor teeth of horses, possible traces of a bit, 
which would imply the beginnings of domestication. 

The fauna of the Mousterian layers of La Quina, as determined 
by Dr. Martin, consists essentially of the following forms: 

Mammoth (scarce) Marmot 

Horse Cave Bear 

Bos primigenius Wolf 

Bison Hyena 

Reindeer A large feline (lion?) 
Deer (large) Blue fox 

Small rodents 
Birds (including a vulture) 
It is throughout a cold fauna; there are no traces, even in and be- 
neath the lowest cultural layer, of animals of a warm period. 
As to the skeletal remains found in the Mousterian deposits at La 
Quina, it seems that more than one interpretation is possible. For Dr. 


Martin, as is well known, they represent simply so much refuse, except 
in the case of the skeleton, which he believes was buried accidentally 
in the mud of the river. 

These views offer some difficulties. The writer, both as a medical 
man and as an anthropologist, has seen accidental as well as intentional 
burials of many sorts. In accidental drownings the body, as soon as 
decomposition sets in and the abdominal cavity is extended by gases, 
rises to the surface. It might, of course, be deposited in the bushes or 
the mud at the edge of a river, but in the case of a relatively small 
and sluggish stream such as the Voultron it is difficult to conceive 
how a body thus deposited or caught could be so completely and 
rapidly covered with silt as to be sufficiently buried and remain so. 
It would seem much more likely that the body was buried intentionally 
in the dry river silts by its congeners. In such a formation and after 
such a long time as has elapsed since the burial it could not be ex- 
pected that any marked traces would remain of the fossa. 

As to the other human skeletal remains disseminated through the 
higher deposits, the conditions would seem to agree with what may 
be noticed in many much more recent intentional burials. Decay, bur- 
rowing of animals, and movements in the earth itself are not seldom 
found to have played havoc with skeletal remains. There are Indian 
burials, for example, in which practically nothing remains of the 
skeletal parts. In others the bones of the same skeleton are found 
widely scattered. The skull may be in situ, with the lower jaw at 
a distance; the bones from the knees downward may be fairly well 
preserved and still almost in their natural position, with all or most 
of the rest of the body missing, barring perhaps a few teeth; and 
individual bones, especially those of the smaller kind, may be found 
at an unexplainable distance from its skeleton. The same agencies were 
active both in historic and in prehistoric times, and the far greater 
time elapsed must have been all the more potent in producing all 
sorts of irregularities. The conditions at La Quina would be easier 
of explanation if, as at Krapina, there had been detected evidences of 
cannibalism ; but none of the human remains shows signs of intentional 
breaking, of fire, or of scraping and disarticulation. 

That the remains were simply thrown out is inconceivable ; and it is 
still more inconceivable that in some instances the parts thrown out 
would have been merely the astragali or the patellae or a few pieces of 
the frontal bones, etc. And these parts were not likely the remnants 
left by wolves or hyenas, for after the feasts of such animals, as I 
had ample occasion to see in Mongolia where all bodies are thrown to 


the wild animals, there remain besides the skull only the hardest parts 
of the long bones of the adults, while adolescents and especially chil- 
dren disappear entirely. Also if the bodies had been thrown out they 
would not have been torn to pieces on the spot, within a few yards of 
the habitations, but would have been dragged to a safe distance. 
Besides which, it is inconceivable that human beings with such brains 
as already possessed by the Neanderthalers would simply throw out 
the bodies of their dead in front of their habitations and leave them 
there with all the consequences. 

Taking everything into consideration it seems more likely that the 
human skeletal remains at La Quina are those of regular inhumations. 
The idea that an intentional burial must leave forever a discernible 
trace of the disturbance is not sustainable. It is found time and again 
with Indian burials that no such disturbance can be perceived. It is 
well to recall that the bodies are covered with the same substances 
that have been excavated from the fossa into which they were laid ; 
and that through rains and other causes there takes place in the course 
of time a packing which quite equals that of the original deposits, and 
which, unless there was a penetration of a very definite layer of sharp 
sand or gravel, leaves eventually no indications. How true all this is 
may be appreciated from a reflection of what happens with the body 
itself. The decay of the soft parts diminishes greatly its volume. It 
also means the presence of a great quantity of organic materials. Yet 
all this invariably disappears in old graves and the bones become 
thoroughly enveloped in whatever materials were originally above and 
about them. There are, moreover, very strong indications of inten- 
tional burials in most if not all the other cases of Neanderthal 


Very detailed and excellent descriptions of the La Quina skulls 
and jaws are given in his publications by Dr. Henri Martin. If the 
writer prefers to give in this place his individual observations it is 
for the sake of greater uniformity with the remaining reports in 
this treatise, all of which are in large measure from his original 


The vault——The skull places itself clearly, by all its characteristics, 
within the range of the Neanderthal type. At the same time the 
specimen has not a little of individuality ; some of its features are 
very primitive and in some respects the specimen is quite puzzling. 


The skullcap approaches near to that of Spy No. 1; the supraorbital 
arch, the broad depression above, the very low and sloping forehead, 
and the characteristics of the occiput are much the same as in Spy 
No. 1; but the La Quina specimen is narrow throughout, and its 
parietals do not rise into a fairly marked vertex as they do in Spy 

Sex—The La Quina skeleton indicates a female rather than a male. 
The skullcap alone, except for the supraorbital arches, the zygomae, 
and to a slight extent the mastoids, would also be diagnosed as a 

tte ee 
agi Wi woee,s, 
ae “ 


La Quina 
Neanderthal = = Spy Tree 
la Chapelle =.—.—.—- OBC 

Filhécanthrope -+r+e+4-4: Arabe mod! ++++ 

Fic. 27—Sagittal contours of the La Quina skull compared with those of other 
Neanderthalers, etc. (After Henri Martin.) 

female ; but the arches, the mastoids (for a Neanderthaler) and above 
all the dental arches, the jaws and the teeth are much more masculine 
than feminine. Had these parts been found alone they unquestionably 
would have been diagnosed as having belonged to a male. If this was 
a female, therefore, she was very exceptional—as in Spy No. 1. It 
would seem more likely that both Spy No. 1 and the La Quina repre- 
sent subaverage males. Cases of similar nature are known among 
primitive skulls and skeletons of our times. Of the pelvis, which 
would probably have decided the question, nothing unfortunately 


Age.—The patent sutures indicate a young adult. The wear of the 
teeth, if these were for instance Eskimo jaws and the teeth were worn 
off as they are in this individual, would indicate a fully adult stage, 
though not past the 35 year mark. With a broad leeway the La 
Quina individual may safely be placed at between 25 and 35 years 
of age. 

Details: supraorbital arches—There is complete meeting over the 
glabella, which itself is slightly elevated ; the arches, which measure 
15-16 mm. in thickness about the middle, diminish but slightly towards 
their distal portions. The maximum transverse diameter of the arches 
reaches only 11.4 cm., which is less than in any of the other Neander- 
thal adults. 

The forehead is low, sloping, and narrow (see Dr. Martin’s measure- 
ments). The nasion-bregma diameter or arc is longer than in Spy 
No. 1, but on the other hand the sagittal (B-Z) diameter or arc is 
shorter, the sum of the two being very nearly equal in the two speci- 
mens. These dimensions, as the student may readily satisfy himself 
on modern material, are largely of a compensating nature, and no 
great weight can therefore be attached to either an exceptionally short 
or an exceptionally long frontal alone. 

The sutures are relatively simple. The parietal region, ovoid from 
side to side, shows but a slight ridging along the anterior two-fifths of 
the sagittal. It is remarkably low. The parietal bosses, as in other 
Neanderthalers, are situated low (only slightly above the mastoid 
parts of the temporal), though they are relatively a trace less posterior 
than the Spy No. 1 and the Neanderthal. The occiput, except for 
being narrower, is typical neanderthaloid, being moderately prominent 
with a flattening above and below. There is a rather marked occipital 
torus reaching on each side the lambdoid suture. The region below the 
torus is concave in its upper part, indicating the attachment of 
powerful nuchal muscles. 

The temporal squamae are relatively small ; the root of the zygomae 
forms a pronounced dull crest; the zygomae are stout; the meatus 
of moderate size ; the mastoids above average feminine or submedium 
masculine. The temporal fossae were spacious ; but the temporal lines 
are rather low and but slightly distinct. 

The face—tThe orbits are relatively large, high, and irregularly 
rounded as in the other Neanderthalers. The upper borders are less, 
the lateral and lower better defined. The nasal process of the frontal 
was evidently stout. The plane of the orbits, as in other Neander- 
thalers, was inclined downwards and forwards, and also somewhat 
more outwards and backwards than in modern skulls. The malars 


again, as in the other Neanderthalers, are relatively small, not promi- 
nent, and sloping outwards and backwards, but with somewhat broad 
frontal processes and zygomata. Nothing definite can be said about 
the nosé but that it was evidently broad, and that there had existed 
more or less of a nasal spine. 

The upper jaw is relatively very large. The shape of the palate was 
that of a broad U. The palate was rather deep. The alveolar process 
was very stout and fairly high, but not very slanting; there had ex- 
isted evidently a facial rather than alveolar prognathism. The teeth 
are strikingly megadont. 

The facial, as well as the cranial bones are not more massive than 
they are in many of the stronger built skulls of today, which 1s 
different from all the other Neanderthal crania. 

The base-—The anterior parts are missing. The glenoid cavities are 
very shallow, but broad (transversely), extending from the over- 
developed spinous processes and the tympanic plate mesially, well onto 
the base of the zygomae laterally. There is no trace of a spine or a 
styloid; and between the tympanic plate and the mastoid there is a 
large space, even more marked than in the other Neanderthalers. 
There is also a broad space between the mastoid and the lateral edge 
of the basal portion of the occipital (digastric groove). Both of these 
features, due in the main to the lesser development of the mastoid, 
are characteristic of the Neanderthalers, and are absent (pre-mastoid 
space) or less marked (digastric groove) in human skulls of today. 

The lower jaw.—The lower jaw is very primitive. It is stout, wholly 
chinless, and with the inferior portion of the posterior borders of the 
rami more curved and more anthropoid than in any of the other early 
mandibles. The alveolar border is stout, the teeth large. There is no 
diminution in the size of the molars backward. 

The symphyseal region is broad and stout; the dental arch was 
U-shaped. The body, while not essentially high, in harmony with 
other Neanderthal mandibulae, appears nevertheless too high for a fe- 
male. it is distinctly higher on the left than on the right side. In- 
feriorly the jaw presents much more of a definite dull border than do 
other Neanderthalers or the Mauer jaw. These is no trace of any 
shelf ; and the anterior region, though very broad, approaches that in 
the jaws of today. The rami, above the modern average in breadth, 
are also rather high (H., approx., 7.8; Diam. min., 4.7 cm.). The 
condyles are broad, but not stout. The coronoid processes are about 
as in strong modern jaws, and the sigmoid notches are well marked— 
not shallow as in the other Neanderthalers. 



O a e 
Z EE ony) 1 



NX Le 

Fic. 28.—Endocranial cast of the La Quina skull. (After Henri Martin. ) 





ef "s 
oe! Berg 

VOL. 83 

(After Henri Martin.) 

Fic. 29.—Endocranial cast of the La Quina skull, side view. 


Dorsally there is present on each side but especially on the right, 
a fairly marked dull ridge such as is seen in the La Chapelle jaw; 
but the condition is less developed and the ridges do not reach per- 
ceptibly the outer ends of the condyles. Anteriorly to them, however, 
there are marked fossae. Ventrally the rami are much like those in 
stronger modern jaws, but the mylohyoid ridge is more developed and 
the fossae for the internal pterygoids are very spacious. 

The brain —The brain of the La Quina skull was larger than that of 
Gibraltar, but smaller than those of the La Chapelle and Neanderthal 
crania. In form it was much the same as that of the other Neanderthal 
subjects, particularly those with the narrower skulls. There is a very 
marked smallness of the frontal lobes, a considerable overhanging 
of the occipital lobes of the cerebrum, and a marked separation of 
the two halves of the cerebellum. The left hemisphere shows a some- 
what better development than the right, though the right appears to 
have been slightly longer. The convolutions of the La Quina brain 
were less simple and gross than those of the man of La Chapelle and 
Neanderthal, without reaching the average of the European brain of 

In detail the brain presented some characteristics of inferiority, 
while in others it approached that of recent man. As in the La 
Chapelle and the Neanderthal brains, so also in that of La Quina 
the sulcus lunatus was certainly present. The relative development 
of the cerebral lobes was almost identical in the La Quina and the 
La Chapelle brains." The cerebral breadth-length index of La Quina 
was 73.8. 

The teeth—(After Henri Martin.) The teeth are more powerful 
than those of Spy and even those of Mauer. The crowns are large 
and bulging, the enamei thick (reaching 1.5 mm.). The roots are long 
and stout, their number tends in instances to an increase, and there is 
a marked inclination to doubling. M3 are as large as, if not larger 
than, M2. The pulp chambers are spacious. There is no trace of 
caries or of abscesses, but there is some tartar. The crowns show 
marked, somewhat unequal wear.” There is also on some of the teeth 
a marked contact wear, due to the crowding of the teeth against each 
other, the result of the large development of the crown. 

* The data on the La Quina brain are those of R. Anthony; they form a part 
of Henri Martin’s 1923 memoir on L’homme fossile de La Quina, pp. 108-114. 

* Would be called moderate according to American standards; no pulp cavity 
and but little dentine is exposed. 




(By Henrt Martin) 

Thengthirmaxcypanct 2 Heaton ion ne Steet tiene Pelaon se er mehye cea er 20.3 
Breadth axa, 6 oiswe cco bh ce hiecsdes = Rone rowed ae Ge eee eee ere ener eee 13.8 
Cranial index ine hehe eek aoe oe eee ueicl eevee eae Rees eee eae eco 08.0 
(lea? @riimna\\ Child yer S eee <n ce tren ee ole otal ere 77.0) 
Length from: ophiy on) demas nyc ss rete enctes rae epee tee pete ete tee eee 18.3 
Cranial index, with:ophryon: lengths. 255/226 42 4 4s ei ee 75.4 
Basion-breama sheieht, meaty: =... midterm iels eis rile eee eee 12.2 
Mean height index.“(birdlicka) i 2)\-frc «55 cles toe mer eer eaten 71.6 
Eleight-breadthy  1md@exs oe 2 cise ole) telefon ieee eer 88.4 
Height from elabella-imion line to vertex). 0). sc feeers teeta ee ete 7.05 
Galottal index. @Schwalbe)/-: 2estase asceciss | ey ee eee tere 39.09 
Gircumferences(horizs) . sce noses seco eno ee eee erie treireter 51.5 
Arche middlesot meatus) Over DLeStiiae aac ices cece cee eer etter 30.5 
Diam. frontal min. (Broca)).< 22s. ..4. cm. 50 s0) 5.5 tee oe eee 10.0 
Diam: frontal (masc. 3 .o./c cai ets cco siete Oo ee che erence aval vol Ranetensto ye horerer peetees 11.6 
Nasion=bregimia diam: i’. sisreraiss eis eraelelets cle etnies cleo) eel eee ericete 12.0 
Breema-lamibbda diam: 24 cise secs -e ale cyte iepnetrisiet-sere oe ciekaia) eke meee erie 11.2 
Wambdacinionn diatms onic cence cect s iacreh cielo ne seas Oe ToRn tn Reema 6.2 
Ext. biorbital ibreadthic. ociieemin es oiceec ere etenercl ote one erene eae tenet Poiotede trenton 10.2 
THES 5c gas ace-skore'd wre Sid ce ess ete w At tela pahn atta reveled Sis = eee ee etek eee ae 3.65 
Breadth,  ctisc fois seuss siessiede te areieteye ese ether vere s ieuslencie ciuss rokeke eter eeenen ere ners ? 
INOSEis: thn ts State terctars 5, oles ch ouaxese annie foe es eae eee eure eR ieistereeneatei het aeknetets ? 
Wpper alveolararch, ext.ibreadth max: a. caet eeilteie cei eiiere oe irr 7.75 
Cranial capacity (obtained directly from displacement by intracranial 
CASE) 1) Shocks ciS Fk sid Several Gngietete ea otaltole ee terete rehone lele helo et ic eRs Rice E3a50nC)c 
Mean: height Of (body. crc. <.<:cpnessuevs c'ateie: © ste eaenets aye ae iene scree eenetnerelrete neato 3.4 
Mean. thickness: of / body <is/s:..2.2.4...4.< navonddouiele tte tiereeer ene tkereiete Cioener cere 1.5 
THiS iis oe So dia 80h a tw ate -g tates 50d rao ie ho Pans TRC ARICT OD Nan EPR RN Nec nek oge rete 44.15 
Symphyseal! angle; about 4 s.2 <0). 4etM0i cee es eee eee eres rare 109° 
Ramus : 
EMH RINE face cesncev 5 evveneile sa fosovol'evouairel ay Staite es Povey eve (e eRe CRA RRR eo near 7.5 
Breadth mins *o.e.c. soca 00s ayaa bch 6a Sanev evar Sev aser aoe RO ec eeeieiree 4.7 
External breadth between points on external alveolar border outside of 
MSE deb Ute Sue 2 shal SS). cine tora tn eis tate Ree oe TSE aR ae ne eean 8.5 
Mandibular angle approx. to... ce. as sieeeeeeie eee ORR EE Err 110° 
Condyle (right) : 
Transverse diam: 5 sas sadcobaato Selec cee ee DRE errs 2.5 
Antero=posta: diame ko. ashes. osters cae eee eae ee DEE CEG 0.9 
Breadth of space between M3 and the vertical plane of the anterior 
borders of ‘the: ramit.)s.. a0 0 is ad Seas ae eee ae On eee ere 12 
Breadth of space between M3, to the lower ends of the anterior borders 
Of ‘the ‘rami ee esce svete cules «a SRR ORE Ge ee eee eee 0.5 

* In part the measurements have been taken differently from those of other workers, and are 
not directly comparable except with those taken in the same manner. 




Mi M 2 M 3 
Es 1s Te Nr r. IE 
mm. | mm. | mm. | mm. | mm. | mm. 
Motallensth crown. 542) a5) | Osh} Sy || Os@ BPS Sas 
IROOtH ns ae tele ah aol wales tees TA SSaleLs.ON Lhe 5 1) Loe) | Os 5) 17,10 
Crown: Length (anterior-post. 
ITE cai ss ha oe SUES ree F220 12) OF 12550) 1235 LE oS PhS 
Breadth (transverse diam.)...... TES ahs) | eL2cOnt22O5! L340) | 13-0 

1 In his 1923 volume, p. 144 et seg., Dr. Martin gives exhaustive measurements of each of the 
25 teeth that are present. 


(Mainly after Henri Martin) 

The second lower jaw (H g) of La Quina’ is represented by its 
left half only, but this is in a good state of preservation. The jaw 
is not as receding as H 5 and has a distinct reminder of a chin. 
The mental foramen is multiple, consisting of three larger and two 
smaller orifices, extending from I2 to Mr. At the cross section 
between Pm2 and Mr the height of the body is 3.7, thickness 
1.6 cm. [The lower jaw H 5 of the skeleton measures 3.4 by 1.5 cm., 
but the damage to the alveolar border makes the measurement some- 
what uncertain, and on the right the thickness of the body was also 
about 1.6 cm. The body is distinctly higher on the left than on the 
right side (r. approx. 3.2; 1. 3.5 cm.) ] The axis of the condyles is 
less oblique than in modern man (same case in H 5). The mylohyoid 
ridge is stout, the fossa for internal pterygoid marked, much as in 
H 5. The ramus was high, not excessively broad; there is much 
more of an angle than in H 5, and the mandibular angle is more 
open; the sigmoid notch was fairly deep. The teeth are megadont, 
again as in H 5. At the angles the fairly sharp borders of the jaws 
are slightly inverted. The unevenness of the right and left sides of 
the jaw is remarkable. The right body is distinctly lower but stouter 
than the left, and the right ramus is distinctly lower as well as 
narrower, but at the same time stronger than the left. There is, 

* Reported, briefly described, and pictured by Martin in: Position stratigraph- 
ique des ossements humains recueillis dans le Moustérien de La Quina. Bull. Soc. 
préhist. France, pp. 3-4, 1912, reprint. 

therefore, the interesting and rather anomalous combination of a 
ereater strength of both the body and the ramus on the right side, 
with a lesser development in height of both body and the ramus, 
and also a lesser breadth of the ramus. 


This skull is of somewhat higher grade than that of the adult. The 
vault is higher, and while still showing traces of the Neanderthal type, 
especially in the lower frontal and in the occipital region, it neverthe- 
less could be much more nearly duplicated today. But there are 
features of the skull which attach it distinctly to the Neanderthalers. 
Although the specimen is that of a child not over eight years of age, 
the supraorbital arch is already plainly indicated and complete, and 
there is a shallow broad depression above it. The forehead, however, 
is quite as high and well arched as in mesocephalic skulls of children 
of similar age of today. It shows also not the single “ cocoanut ” 
bulge as in the negro, but a broad expanse which 1s like that in the 
crania of present white children. 

The sutures are distinctly more simple than in a modern child. 
The parietals are formed much like those in modern mesocephalic 
skulls of children; but there is already perceptible the location of the 
parietal bosses which, as in the adult skull of La Quina, are almost 
directly above the mastoid region of the temporal. There is a distinct 
vertex ; the lambdoid region is not more flattened than in children’s 
skulls of similar shape today; neither is the occipital more pro- 
truding or more “ undercut,” or more flattened beneath the protuber- 
ance—in fact there is no flattening. The outline of the norma superior 
is an oblong ovoid, not yet as “baggy” behind as in the adult 
Neanderthalers. The temporal squamae are low—distinctly lower 
than in modern skulls of children, and the mastoids are much less 
developed, with the digastric groove broader and reaching higher on 
the left side, where a considerable part of it is quite external. The 
meatus is of about the same size as it is today but its vertical axis is 
not quite the same as in modern children’s skulls. 

The face—tThe orbits are not of excessive size; their borders are 
still fairly sharp; their shape, as far as it can be told, except where 
affected by the rather peculiar border of the malars, shows little that 
is striking. The interorbital septum is not very stout. The nose 
is fairly protruding, concave, rather long, the nasal aperture broad. 
The suborbital (canine) fossae are full. There is but moderate facial 
or alveolar prognathism. The bones of the nose and maxilla appear 


to be somewhat stronger than they are in the modern child. The 
upper alveolar process (nasal floor to, alveolar point) is rather low. 
The shape and size of the palate and the size and conformation of 
the milk teeth offer nothing very special; but the four incisors in 
eruption are all markedly shovel-shaped (scooped out on their lingual 

The base —The glenoid cavities are remarkedly small and shallow. 
The pre-mastoid space is not yet well marked as it is in the adult 
La Quina. The condyles are small. There were evidently also other 
peculiarities, but the parts are too much damaged for correct de- 

Principal measurements on the original (Hrdlicka) : 

cm, cm. 

Vaults enethiamasce el 7.2 Cranialiindexereee crise 76.7 

Breadth max.. 13.2 Mean height index approx. 78.9 
Height, basion- Height-breadth index ap- 

oydeennne) Goode 12.2 PEO os sper cree sieieks svete aeers 90.9 

(but basion sm. 
unduly elevated, 
it seems, in re- 
construction ) ; 

corrected, abt. 12.0 
(or possibly still 
a little less). 

(Mainly after Henri Martin) 

Atlas——Of moderate proportions and strength; some peculiarities 
in details, especially as to anterior tubercle which is directed down- 
ward, as in other Neanderthalers (as far as known) ; odontoid facet 
very spacious. 

Axis—Much damaged ; of moderate size and strength. 

Other cervical vertebrae —Defective ; moderate size and strength ; 
bodies not high; spinous processes wanting. 

Bones of the limbs.—Badly preserved for the most part, and largely 
missing. What remains shows evident Neanderthal features. 

Humeri.—Rather defective. The two bones are so different that 
they could be taken for bones of different skeletons ; but they were 
found in place with the skeleton. The differences may probably be 
explained by some pathological condition affecting the left arm. 

The right bone is much the stronger (circumference—r, 7.3; I. 
6.2 cm.). [In size and strength and muscular impressions it is about 
equal to medium modern masculine.] The shaft of the right bone 


is somewhat flattened; transverse diameter, 2.6; antero-posterior 
diameter, 1.3 cm. [At middle the shaft is intermediary in shape 
between prismatic and plano-convex.] The lower third of the shaft 
approaches cylindrical. Near the nutrient foramen is an exostosis 
11 mm. high, probably of traumatic origin. 

The left humerus [upper 3] is much more slender, except in its 
lower extremity, which equals that of the right bone. The shaft in 
its upper third is near lozenge-shaped (on a cross section) [in the 
middle region prismatic]. Maximum transverse diameter, 2.1 ; antero- 
posterior diameter, 1.5 cm. Notwithstanding the slenderness of the 
bone, the muscular insertions are well marked [though not correspond- 
ing closely with those on the right bone]. 

The thickness of the walls is about the same in the two humeri; 
but the medullary canal of the left is much smaller (r. 13, 1. 8 mm. 
in largest diameter). The transverse diameter of the lower end on 
the right is 6.3 cm., and on the whole, near in its characteristics to 
that of recent humeri. The olecranon fossa, however, as in other 
Neanderthalers is deep and spacious (2.9 broad, 2.2 high, and at 
least 1.3 cm. deep). The septum in the right humerus was not perfo- 
rated, in the left shows a small aperture. The lower portion of the left 
humerus resembles that of the right. 

Ulnae.—Present, right to olecranon only. The articular facets are 
relatively flat. The posterior surface indicates a strong triceps. 

Femora.—The shaft of the left femur is nearly entire but epiphyses 
are wanting; of the right femur only about one-half of the bone 
(upper part) remains. 

[In strength, size and other characters the bones approach closely 
a good modern medium male. | 

At middle: 


Diam:.antero=post. 20). 25s cee ese eee hese do ae Eee ee nee 2.6 
‘Diam, tFanSVerse .s sos. ticle bale ieee Sen ee ee 3.0 
Circumference: 4.656 hb neck 226 Se eee eee 9.0 

At upper flattening: 
Dian: “Min. 5 3.562505 Ss owes bok oeee Sone ee eee 2.6 
Diam: ‘max. 268s cols Se caves beaters eae 3.35 
Trdext: isis d tected Se ed ssp a Mole oe ee ee 77.0 

The later index shows that there was but moderate flattening. 
About its middle the shaft approaches cylindrical, with the linea 
aspera but slightly developed. The popliteal region is wanting. The 
whole shaft is moderately arched forward, resembling thus the other 
Neanderthal femora. There is no hypotrochanteric fossa. What 


Upper, Dr. Henri Martin in his laboratory at La Quina, 1923. 
Lower, a partial view of the La Quina site from the road, 1923. 

Cunszeyy luazy] Joypy) ‘woyaTays yuTOUe pataAocouN dy} YM ‘sysodap BuING BT YL 


PE 6 

VOL. 83, 


The La Quina skull, after reconstruction. 

(UujIeI WuUoF{ Joyy) “Mel euind) eT ZIOI oyL 



remains of the right bone shows the same characters. The walls of 
the shaft are stout, particularly posteriorly (anteriorly, near middle, 
8 mm.; posteriorly, 11 mm.). On the whole the femora give the 
impression of relative shortness and robustness. The distinct charac- 
ters of the femora may be summarized as short, robust, arched, with 
a distinct torsion, and with but very moderately developed linea 

( Hrdlicka ) 

The La Quina human skeletal remains are of more interest than 
has so far been appreciated. While distinctly neanderthaloid they 
present variants of the type, in the narrowness and lack of massive- 
ness of the adult cranium, in the stoutness of its jaws and teeth, in 
the primitiveness of the angles of its mandible, in its shallow but 
long (transversely) glenoids. There is a further variant, an approach 
to a chin, in the second adult lower jaw. And there is a great deal 
of interest in the child skull, which on one hand is a Neanderthaler, 
and on the other, in size, form of vault, and form of occiput, ap- 
proaches a modern. The majority of the characters of the skull and 
of the other skeletal parts indicate a submedium male (for a Neander- 
thaler) and not a female. 

There is still much left of the Mousterian deposits of La Quina, 
taking the classic site alone. The latter is now under the govern- 
ment’s protection; it ought to be completely excavated, for there is 
good promise of still further remains of human skeletons, and such 
remains would all be of great value. 


Still another highly interesting and scientifically valuable skeleton 
of early man is that of the Homo mousteriensis Hauseri. The skele- 
ton is preserved in the addition to the Museum ftir Volkerkunde at 
Berlin, where it was seen by the writer in 1923 and again in 1927. 
It was discovered in March 1908, by O. Hauser, during archeological 
excavations in what is known as “the lower Moustier cave,’ or 
“ paleolithic station number 44,” at Le Moustier, in the valley of the 
Vezere, Department of Dordogne, France, and was eventually pur- 
chased from Herr Hauser for the Berlin Museum. 

The cave, or more properly rock-shelter (fig. 30), when excavated 
gave numerous evidences of man’s occupation, but no human bones. 
The skeleton under consideration was discovered in the terrace in 

front of the cave, almost vertically below the entrance. It lay about 
3 feet deep and no disturbance in the superimposed deposits was 

The human bones were uncovered with great care in the presence 
of responsible witnesses, then covered again with earth and left im 
situ for several months, though shown during this time to a number 
of visitors. On August 8 they were exposed for Virchow, v. d. 
Steinen, Klaatsch, and other scientific men, and finally, two days 

Fic. 30—The Le Moustier rock-shelter, and the position of the human skeleton, 
(After Hauser.) 

afterwards, in the presence of Professor Klaatsch, they were taken 
with the utmost precautions from the deposits. 

A somewhat picturesque account of the discovery by Hauser will 
be found in the 1909 volume of the Archiv ftir Anthropologie.’ The 
skeleton, it appears, lay on its side in a natural extended position, 
with the right hand under the occiput, the left extended along the 
body. About the body and among the bones were found 74 worked 
flints, 10 of which were of a well-defined form. On the skull rested 
a charred bone of Bos primigenius, and in the neighborhood of the 
thorax lay a tooth of the same animal. Besides this, 45 other frag- 

* Klaatsch, H., and Hauser, O., Homo mousteriensis Hauseri. Ein altdiluvialer 
Skelettfund im Departement Dordogne und seine ZugehOrigkeit zum Neander- 
taltypus. Archiv f. Anthropologie, N. F., Vol. 7, 1909. 


ments of animal bones were gathered in close proximity to the human 
remains. The examination of the human bones was begun on the spot 
by Klaatsch and continued after the removal of the remains to 
Germany, resulting in the following conclusions by that author: 

The skeleton belongs to an adolescent of perhaps 16 years of age, 
probably of the male sex. The height of the boy, as estimated from 
the long bones, was probably 1.45 to 1.50 m. (4 ft. 9 in. to 4 ft. 
Tole ett.) 2 

The skull, notwithstanding the youth of the subject, shows a number 
of characteristics which are peculiar to the Neanderthal group. While 
of good size, with only moderately thick bones of the vault, and the 
latter of a fair height, it shows nevertheless a rather low and sloping 
forehead ; a well-marked complete supraorbital arch or torus, which 
later in life would doubtless have become much more prominent ; 
relatively large dental arches, with decidedly large and in a number 
of particulars primitive teeth; a massive lower jaw with complete 
absence of the chin eminence; and other interesting features. The 
glenoid fossae, especially that on the right, show a marked inclination 
upward and outward, as in the skulls of Krapina and as in the skulls 
of children in modern man; and there are other characteristics of the 
skull and skeleton that connect them morphologically quite closely 
with the man of Krapina. 

The long and other bones, as far as preserved, possess numerous 
primitive characteristics. [Especially noticeable among these are the 
relatively large extremities, particularly the head of the femur; a 
strong development of the external condyle of the femur ; the peculiar 
arching of the femur; the very marked curvature of the radius; ete. 
Klaatsch reached the conclusion that the skeleton belongs undoubtedly 
to the Homo neanderthalensis variety of the early European. 

During these studies Professor Klaatsch attempted also a restora- 
tion of the skull; the first results were, as is well known, unfortunate, 
but a second restoration proved more successful. 

In 1912 the writer saw the originals in the Museum fiir Volker- 
kunde, Berlin. They had been purchased from Herr Hauser for a 
considerable sum, raised, it was stated, through subscriptions led 
by the Kaiser. After their receipt even the second Klaatsch recon- 
struction of the skull was recognized to have been somewhat erroneous 
and so the pieces were taken apart and a third reconstruction was 
begun by E. Krause, the Museum preparator, with expert assistance. 
The results were more satisfactory ; nevertheless some doubtful points 
remained even then and these eventually lead to the fourth and the 


most satisfactory reconstruction of the skull by Dr. Hans Weinert. 
Dr. Weinert also made a thorough study of the skull, including its 

By this time it was well seen that the Le Moustier skeleton, while 
representing a much more human-like subject than that of the first 
reconstruction, and though not adult, was nevertheless a document 

Fic. 31.—The left femur of the Le Moustier youth. (After Klaatsch.) 

ot human antiquity of much value and importance. Since 1925, the 
skeleton has lain, in as nearly the original position and environment 
as it was possible to produce, in a large glass case in the building 
adjoining the Museum ftir Voélkerkunde, while nearby is a similar 
case containing the originals of the nearly as important Aurignacian 
skeleton of Combe Capelle, found also by Herr Hauser. 


Dr. Weinert (1925) in his report on the remains restricts himself 
essentially to a detailed description, with very complete measurements, 

*Der Schadel des eiszeitlichen Menschen yon Le Moustier, in neuer Zusam- 
mensetzung, 54 pp., 38 illustrations, Berlin, 1925. 


of the skull. The work is able and leaves little to be said by other 
observers. The main conclusions are given in the table below. 

The skull in all its features fits among the Neanderthalers ; those 
aspects of it that appear more recent are to be ascribed to the youth 
of the individual. Although it has been suggested that the skeleton 
may be Acheulian, there is morphologically no indication of anything 
older than Neanderthal. 

A sagittal outline of the Le Moustier skull, contrasted with similar 
outlines of seven of the Neanderthalers, shows it to possess a lesser 
supraorbital torus (juvenile), a better arched forehead, a better 
marked vertex, and a somewhat shorter occiput (pl. 79); but the 
differences are of very moderate degree and not such as would tend 
to displace the specimen from the group. A comparison of the outline 
of the norma superior of the skull with those of Neanderthal and 
La Chapelle shows similar conditions. 


The Skullcap: 

Greatest slenethennommes| abpellaneemeerrte tee ater irene 19.6 
(Greatestibread the ciycirsicracmch ie aac coche eee ttere terete 15.0 
GSE AIT AN AINE KS a5 sya ohare wi sata co ce naete stole ees aie Deano oss Siete cea lere pstehs 76.53 
Hermht.:basiona-prepinal ws. <cic eet esis s Cee ere Teak bis, oe oleic ays 12.85 
HMeiaht-bread tay index t2iir5 ie ian aehwtcets ved peered eee ote tesete © ere 85.7 
Meanbhetshtaingexa (Getnd lic ka)) rane seers ee een rersiereeet ieee tsi 74.3 
Sst iistateds Capacity tae ore eee sae See ae areerde ean 1,564 cc. 
Wi ammeenhontalenmitiecm oy cee ae ees rocdete cee eres recess ine 10.9 
iat troni tal erniaxeneaie ences ters: cies eeerixe ce mie sea ener ere 12.0 
Galotte-hetehtCabovesG=l line) las see eee eee cir rae el neice 9.0 
Galotte-hetolit amd extras ers sts sais oc fo ee kore chee cae che eee tena sient 47.3 
Pndocranialmensthemaxcas cere cstiii a kites eer 17.6 
[Greatestrendocranialabreadth mneatec-- erasers eee 13.5] 

HMeightetotalestinated cysscisisis scr et cicero sic einieus lo oei=s > 12.4 
Fiera ety Oiy a as oe cayerat ove) skarovacel Sy avslecayava c ovahercyeet ean src nye over se uelone ater tere 8.0 
Diam bizverOmaticeateyackia cries oe ocr tree ee ncickeie eee 14.5-15.0 
Ractalmandexstotal-. approx. aioe. coctoia Hole Crereyre ie hase lows ciel 85.5-82.7 
Hacialmind @xsn1ip pelsrasisacaite ec hor ree ciate cae Sache ers ravens 55.2-00.0 
Basion-alveolarsepointadiaienr <1 mec meee temic cies res 
Basion-nasloneciatny, 2 cies prensa eo seenteer eavorna ciaiweretic isle ois 12.4 
Paci aleatieslerarcsters crete streets ce ceetetets rere eesrepevefe-siartaveielsuceatt evaleie, fe,’ 71 | 
WMessrrtiinl Lieb Or Roe idoy, Eide aca omAcoanonoone cco deUboore 121 

Elletpin Gamerecciartaerare are 8 eicreceetare mareearerisiesiee sctiafe eds Maas oa 4.2 

IB reac thiemeen cian cc ser ariel cies tee a anc re aera viatueiseca ees Uncertain 


Nose: em. 
Height; ‘near. << ctwaers. sb lote enolate eer: aieeaee eee 5.6 
Breadth smear’ sarees atin c.ciemnseeeteveue cers thorns et een rea reReormertos 2.8 
Trice ae Ee ae rate acer ale Teer tele e ake erected eee 50.0 

Upper Dental Arch: 
hemeth,.tmeartig& <6 c.g sa ets fae e som teae euatees = Brae oe ee eee ere ae 6.2 
Breadth amides c ccve colo cs crcieteloleietacersterne liens Pals Tol Pat ae nen tenetonckstens 7.4 
Bigonial’ breadth csc): sc cs < eteye21eie eta omeet ale leet eee ee 10.4 


Bicondylar diam. meat... ce flere « tue creraainie aks tt eels pa ieee ie a 13.3 

Length'of the bone CMartin 68) )) eerie ae ccc otal tedden esata 9.8 

Height at syrmphiysiss sc taie «1+ /<<e:s vere olnystaneVabaes eve af ohatVetctatshetst het tsiea 3.0 

Height’ of body at'the mental foramen: 3.15. co slate times tie) oe 2.85 

Mhicknessiot body ibelowsLileeiameeeee ts eee aoe ei ern e rater 1.75 

Breadthiminvofinamus eine eee noe Reece eaters 3.6 

Eeneth of upper dental ‘archias.i..15 <i siecle | seit lee ail yee ieee 6.32 

Vength of lower dental: arch)... c cn else: e-alerts 6.45 

(After Klaatsch) 

Klaatsch (1909),' as already noted, diagnosed the Le Moustier re- 
mains as those of probably a male adolescent of about 16 years of 
age. On account of the youth of the individual the measurements of 
the bones can have but secondary value, unless they could be con- 
trasted with normal modern youths of same age, which is difficult. 
Many of the parts, moreover, are more or less defective. The main 

measurements and characterizations of Klaatsch are as follows: 

Remunletts Wcengthr mass, approx. clic eee re 38.0 

Shaft cylindrical, its antero-post. and lateral diams. close to..... 2 
Extremities relatively large; head large, diams................ 4.6-4.8 
Breadth*max. of lower ‘endvapproxeaca. crea eee erne 8.0 
Lateral condyle relatively strongly developed. 
Arching forward as in the Neanderthal femur. 
[Also mild arching inward. | 
Linea aspera but slightly developed. 
No platymery. 
Tibia, fragments only: 
Plump, short (not over 29.0 in max. length). 
Not platycnemic. 
Retroflexion of head must have been present. 
Fibula, fragments: stout; resembles that of Spy. 
Humerus, incomplete; Length, estimated 
Strongly developed. 
Deltoid tuberosity pronounced. 
Radius, Strong arching, as in most other Neanderthalers; Length, 

GO io cinco OCC OMe neo IAS ote otecdmatic tiebus do oboe 19.5 
Clavicle, Relatively slender, as general in Neanderthalers. 

* Homo mousteriensis Hauseri, etc., pp. 203-204. 


BZ cild 

(-€z61 ‘eyoyprH Aq ydersozoy ) 

ay} Aq painosgo “UOJaJays URLUNY IY} JO d}1S BY} ‘Jd}TIYS JOMOT «UIs ARI JoddyQ, ‘a4az1 A 94} UO ‘TaTysnOyy 97] 







Dieck, W. Das Gebiss des diluvialen Homo mousteriensis Hauseri und seine 
Rekonstruktion. Odontologisk Tidskrift, No. 3, 1923. 

Kriaatscu, H. Der primitive Mensch der Vergangenheit und der Gegenwart. 
Verhandl. Ges. d. naturf. Arzte, 80 Ver., Vol. I, p. 95, Koln, 1908. 

Die Fortschritte der Lehre von der Neandertalrasse. Ergeb. Anat. u. 

Entwicklungsgesch., Vol. 17, 1907; Wiesbaden, 1908. 

Das Gesichtsskelett der Neandertalrasse und der Australier. Ver- 

handl. anatom. Ges., 1908. 

ANp Hauser. Homo mousteriensis Hauseri. Arch. Anthrop., Vol. 7, 

p. 287, 1900. 

- anp Hauser. Die neuesten Ergebnisse der Palaontologie des Menschen 

und ihre Bedeutung fiir das Abstammungsproblem. Z. Ethnol., Vol. 41, 

p- 537, 1909. 

anv Hauser. Kraniomorphologie und Kraniotrigonometrie. Arch. 
Anthr., Vol. 8, pp. 1-23, 1900. 

ScHUCHHARDT. Die neue Zusammensetzung des Schadels von Homo mous- 
teriensis Hauseri. Prahist. Zeitschr., Vol. 4, p. 443, 1912. 

Vircuow, H. Z. Ethnol., p. 580, 1900. 

Die Aurignac-Rasse und ihre Stellung im Stammbaum der Menschheit. 

Z. Ethnol., Nos. 3-4, 1910. 

Homo aurignaciensis Hauseri. Prahist. Zeitschr., Vol. I, pp. 273, 285, 

Z. Ethnol., p. 1407, 1916. 


In 1925, the British School of Archeology in Jerusalem decided 
upon the exploration of certain caves in Galilee, and the work was 
entrusted to Mr. F. Turville-Petre who, during a previous season, 
had made a preliminary survey of the area. The main site explored 
by Mr. Petre during the year was what is now often referred to as 
the “ Galilee Cave ” and in this cave, at the depth of 65 feet, towards 
the lower limit of a paleolithic horizon, were found parts of a ne- 
anderthaloid human skull. The main details of the discovery, since 
published,’ are as follows: 

Entering the ravine of the Wadi el ’Amud and walking some 150 m. up stream, 
a cave known as the Mugharet-el-Zuttiyeh is to be seen high up in the cliffs to 
the north of the stream. The stream at this point is not more than 3 m. wide, 
and the width of the ravine from base to base of the cliffs might be estimated 
at about 15 m. The cave, a natural limestone formation, is situated at the base 

of a precipitous wall of rock, facing southwest; the cliff, which rises to a height 
of some 20 m. above the entrance, renders it inaccessible from the plateau above ; 

2 Turville-Petre, F., Researches in Prehistoric Galilee, 1925-1926. 
Keith, Sir Arthur, A report on the Galilee Skull: British School of Archae- 
ology in Jerusalem. London, 1927. 


while from below, the cave, the modern floor of which lies some 40 m. above the 
level of the stream, is approached by a steep, rocky slope..... 

No flint implements, or other evidence of habitation, were to be seen either on 
the floor of the cave or on the slope which led up to it, but its size and conve- 
nience as a place of habitation, together with the impregnability of its situation, 
seemed to merit the digging of a trial trench through the débris which had 
accumulated during generations of use as a stabling for goats. 

A preliminary trench was dug from the mouth of the cave inwards to the 
back wall, running some 2.5 m. northwest of the medial line of the cave. For the 
first 120 cm. the deposits were of comparatively recent origin, yielding frag- 
ments of bone and potsherds, among which Late Roman and Byzantine types 
predominated, but at a depth of 120 cm., towards the front of the cave, a layer 

RECENT. 543210 


[__] precipitate CLAY. 

Tic. 32.—The Galilee Cave. (After Turville-Petre. ) 

was reached composed of large blocks of rock apparently fallen from the roof, 
and from below these blocks some fragments of bone in a highly mineralized 
state were obtained; also a small coup-de-poing of Middle Palaeolithic type and 
a few chert flakes of indeterminate form. 

The deposits of the cave showed eventually a number of distinguish- 
able layers. The layers of approximately the upper 4 feet showed that 
the cave had served, latest of all, as a sheep stable; below this and 
up to about 35 feet in depth were signs of human occupation extending 
to early bronze or neolithic period. At a depth of about 34 feet a layer 
of fallen rock was found over the central area of the cave. 

Below this layer of rock there was a marked change in the character of the 
deposits. They were here composed of a fine reddish, clayey earth, which was 
comparatively dry; the bone fragments which they contained were hard and 
heavy, reddish in colour and gave out a sharp metallic sound when tapped. This 
layer averaged 90 cm. in thickness, and rested on another consisting of yellowish 


sand, containing water-rolled pebbles. Throughout the layer were blocks of 
fallen rock, but they never formed a continuous layer, as they had done at a 

depth of 120 cm..... Fortunately only a small part of the deposits had thus 
become hardened, and throughout the layer numerous fragments of bone and 
many worked flints in good condition were found. .... No implements were 

found anywhere above the dividing layer of rock, showing conclusively that the 
deposits had undergone no serious disturbance since their deposition. 

Towards the bottom of this layer of palaeolithic occupation, at a depth of 2 m. 
below the modern floor level, were four fragments of a human skull. Their 
approximate resting-place is marked X on the plan. They were lying in a shal- 
low depression formed by irregularities in the cave floor, and were covered by 
two blocks of rock apparently fallen from the roof. The frontal bone has been 
separated from the skull to which it originally belonged along the line of suture, 
but there is nothing to indicate that the separation was produced by force, or 
least of all to suggest that the individual may have been killed by the fall of 
the rocks beneath which the fragments lay. Nor was there anything in the posi- 
tion of the bones and arrangement of the blocks of rock to suggest an intentional 
burial. It is difficult to surmise what may have become of the rest of the skull. 
Careful sieving of all the earth taken from the surrounding area and from 
numerous other parts of the layer failed to disclose any further human remains. 
The fact that the four fragments, namely the frontal bone, part of the right 
zygomatic bone, and two fragments of the sphenoid, were all found together, 
indicating that they have become separated since reaching their final resting- 
place, seems to preclude the probability of their having been washed into the 
cave from outside, for in such a process the projecting sphenoid portions would 
almost inevitably have become detached; nor is it possible that they could have 
fallen through from a higher level, for if so, how did they come to lie beneath 
two large blocks of rock, themselves entirely covered by palaeolithic deposits ? 
The bone itself is in a hard, highly mineralized state, extremely heavy and red- 
dish in colour, in fact in every way similar to the other bone fragments found 
in the layer; it differs absolutely from the soft light pieces of a yellowish colour 
found in the superior layers. 

In 1926 the work in the cave was finished, without further dis- 
coveries of note. Sections through the water-laid deposits below the 
paleolithic layer showed no earlier traces of occupation, human or 

The fauna recovered from the paleolithic layer, as determined by 
Miss Bate, was in the main as follows: 

Hippopotamus sp. Felis cf. sylvestris 

Bison or Bos Felis chaus 

Equus sp. Hystrix sp. 

Ursus cf. arctos Cervus sp. (C. elaphus group) 
Hyaena cf. striata Dama mesopotamica 

Hyaena crocuta Gazella arabica 

Sus sp. Gazella sp. 

Vulpes cf. nilotica Capra primigenia 

Felis cf. pardus Capra sp. 


The stone implements, of flint and chert, show essentially Mous- 
terian affinities. There are also, however, some short and long blades 
and a few other implements that resemble somewhat later types. 

Among the specimens collected from the lowest layer of the Zuttiyeh Cave 
in 1926 there are a number of fragments of antlers and of limb bones of un- 
gulates, bearing incisions and markings which are of considerable interest. 
Some of the markings may be the result of gnawing by Carnivora or Rodentia, 
but others cannot be accounted for in this way..... 

One of the most interesting facts disclosed by the study of the animal remains 
from the Emireh and Zuttiyeh Caves is the definite association of Hippopotamus 
with a Middle Palaeolithic culture, and the probable association of Rhinoceros 
hemitoechus with a slightly later culture. This seems to point to the fact that 
there has not been any great faunal change in this region between the Mouster- 
ian and the following period. The fact that this rhinoceros is R. hemitoechus 
and that this species also occurs in Syria is highly important, emphasizing the 
absence of evidence of a so-called cold fauna. 

Below the Middle Palaeolithic occupation layers of the Zuttiyeh Cave 
“African” types are represented by the spotted hyaena (H. crocuta) and per- 
haps by a river hog (Potamochoerus) ; these were associated with a large form 
of brown bear (Ursus arctos), a typically Palaearctic animal. 


The Galilee skull fragment and its endocranial cast have been 
studied ably and ingeniously by Sir Arthur Keith." The writer saw the 
original in 1927, and has since been able to obtain a good cast of the 
specimen, together with that of the endocranium. The parts present 
include the whole frontal, upper parts of the nasals, most of the right 
malar, and most of the right sphenoid. The frontal and sphenoid 
show separation at the sutures, indicating on one hand a young 
person (in the opinion of Sir Arthur Keith probably under 25 years 
of age), and on the other a separation of the missing parts before 
the remains reached the place where discovered. As to sex, Sir Arthur 
inclines to attribute the bones to a female, the writer to a not very 
robust male. The bones are well preserved, of dark red color, and 
highly petrified. 

The features are those of the Neanderthal type. There is a 
stout, but very distinctly bi-arched supraorbital torus. With the 
striking protrusion of the torus goes also that of the glabellar region, 
yet the glabella remains behind so that it is located in a marked 
depression between the ridges, more marked than in any of the other 
Neanderthalers. The tori (for we must speak of two in this case) 
are stoutest in their mesial two-fifths, especially on the right (on cast 

* Report on the Galilee Skull; in the joint Memoir, pp. 52-106. 


r., 17; 1, 15.5 mm.). More distally, from about their middle, the 
tori are flattened from above, but not tapering. Above and behind 
the tori, as is usual with this conformation, is a marked depression, 
though with no semblance of the anthropoid medial prefrontal shelv- 
ing and fossa. 

The forehead is rather narrow (diam. front. min. 9.7 cm.), but 
better arched than in most of the Neanderthalers and less sloping. 
From side to side it shows a uniform convexity. It gives indications 
that the skull was dolichocephalic (diam. front, max. 11.3 cm.) and 
fairly high, higher relatively than most of the Neanderthal crania.’ 
The frontal squama is about as thick (5-7 mm., Keith) as in stronger 
modern male skulls ; in this respect it is much like the La Quina skull 
and near to Krapina C, but exceeded by other Neanderthalers. The 
surface of the squama shows three scars, one rather deep, caused 
probably by injuries in life. The temporal crests are about as in 
modern skulls. The coronal suture was fairly well serrated. 

The endocranial surface shows a strong metopic ridge. The lower 
half of the squama presents numerous though mostly shallow impres- 
sions of brain convolutions, some at least of which can be identified 
with similar depressions in modern skulls. The inferior frontal-most 
region gives the impression of being somewhat more cramped, not 
as filled out, and slightly more beaked, than it generally is in modern 
crania; yet the actual dimensions of the anterior cerebral fossa in 
length, breadth, and height are much like those in similarly shaped 
recent skulls. The marked depression and exposure of the cribriform 
plate of the ethnoid on each side of the rostrum that are seen in 
most modern skulls, appear to have been much less marked in the Gali- 
lee specimen. The remaining anterior (sphenoidal) portion of the 
temporal fossa shows much the same size, shape, foramina, and im- 
pressions as a dolichocephalic white skull used for comparison. 

The facial parts and the whole frontal as well as general aspect of 
the fragment give a slightly feminine reflection, and Sir Arthur Keith’s 
inclination to regard the skull as feminine can readily be understood ; 
but the great supraorbital tori cannot possibly, in view of comparative 
evidence on the two sexes in apes and of the ontogenetic as well as 
all racial evidence on the torus in man, be attributed to a female. The 
student is confronted here with the same difficulty as in the cases of 
the Spy 1, La Quina, and Ehringsdorf specimens. That the paleo- 

-1“Tn height of vault the Galilee skull resembles modern skulls; it was not 

low and flat-domed as is the case in all typical examples of Neanderthal skulls.” 
Keith, ibid., p. 62. 


lithic female conformed to the rule of lesser development of the tori, 
is well seen in the middle aged female of Gibraltar, as it is seen also 
in those of Predmost, Obercassel and Grimaldi. A great development 
of the supraorbital tori is one of the most dependable of male charac- 
ters, and no skull with such tori can possibly be definitely identified 
as a female without a most convincing proof of the accompanying 
skeleton. It is well known that male skulls with more or less female 
aspect occur among all peoples, and such a female “ reflection ” would 
be heightened in skulls of young adults ; just as a good male skull may 
be accompanied by a weak, more or less female-looking skeleton. 
It is for these reasons that the writer cannot but regard the Galilee 
skull, just as those of the La Quina and Ehringsdorf, as young 

To return to the description: The nasal process of the frontal bone 
is stouter than in modern crania (min. interorbital breadth close to 
2.7 cm.), though less stout than in most of the Neanderthal skulls. 

The orbits approached irregularly quadrangular, were megaseme, 
and deep, but not large (right, h., 3.7; br. 4.0) than in large-orbited 
modern crania. They lack the striking subhuman aspect shown in the 
Gibraltar skull. The borders are dull all over. Their vertical plane, 
notwithstanding the great protrusion forward of the tori, is nearer 
modern, due to the fact that the whole orbital and suborbital region 
is well forward in this skull; and the lateral inclination of their plane 
is even less than in many skulls of whites, due to the relatively back- 
ward position of the nasion and forward position of the frontal process 
of the malar. 

The nasion is considerably more backward than the glabella; it is 
situated but slightly above the middle of a transverse line connecting 
the intersection points of the borders of the orbits and the malo- 
frontal sutures, or much as in modern crania. The nasal bones were 
fairly broad and strong. The root of the nose is rather low, moder- 
ately and uniformly convex from side to side. It is near that of the 
average negro, but could be duplicated in many non-European and 
even some European modern skulls. 

The malar bone is not far from that in some modern skulls; it 
could perhaps best be described as intermediary between the more 
typical Neanderthal form and that of modern man. The body is not 
large, yet not smaller than in many white males; the frontal process 
is decidedly stouter and broader than in European skulls of today, 
but not as stout or broad as in most of the Neanderthalers ; and there 
was no masseteric protrusion of the lower border. But there is a 


well marked inferior swelling of the bone, corresponding to what 
could be described as a moderate prominence of the region in modern 
Europeans. The bone forming the malar is throughout somewhat 
stouter than in modern whites. A portion of attached maxilla indicates 
a considerably broader alveolar arch than in modern Europeans. The 
whole face was broad in relation to the vault. The nose also doubtless 
was broad. 

An interesting condition is seen posteriorly to the external malaro- 
frontal boundary of the face, as to the post-orbital and alisphenoidal 
region, This area is much more spacious than in modern whites, 
owing to the much greater breadth of the orbital plate of the malar 
and of the greater wing of the sphenoid. The smallest distance be- 
tween the external border of the frontal process of the malar and the 
spheno-temporal suture, is (on the cast) 32 mm., the corresponding 
distance in modern whites oscillating about 20 mm. This meant a 
large space in the Galilee skull for the temporal muscle, indicating 
a heavy and large lower jaw with large teeth, as is usual in the . 
Neanderthalers. The sphenoid bone shows some strange conditions 
in the pterygoid region, but these look abnormal ; they are dealt with 
in detail by Sir Arthur Keith. 



Mrxtetransverse breadth “Of trys 7s. 6s c,.i02 i sisistac fetes eae Ss alecieloe ciel 11.9 cm. 
MUICKATES SOU ryt GUIS of lore ro fate des arepel tetas hs oie tows tera Rita. w Sia lowey a ctuleta Sousioes 12.0 mm. 
fairey Se etst cl seni M lee a eaee he 5: cveyas tel ey el tyes fore io ake ay sea te eiein abeiseaieinye.e ya serd,<svasee 9.7 cm. 
PV Iaia OST OLE fy TAN a aries Spoye late ae (arel ada tarcleker atte Suis re Wiarereie''sy 6 & aie wis esetaters 11.3 
Mas breadthon therskulls (estimated) iqssesiem eines accent 13.8 
DW tS 1ONI~ Eta REIN ee eke tates ere; cra Siete lacs avers ble © erpmianeee aa seals Tite 
OPED TENT pn etehitrar tts ase Sie caats Gate charain, Stak bs Shani ace owt tw tw okee elated! a7 
PCAC ace race -ns hasti Nols hanays ted che lee ainic ua ieee ee ela ares 4.0 
na Sox Siropese eset peso tP CLT oral orotate Sarat archi ATO shoo ates Bas 


‘There can be no doubt about the Galilee skull belonging to the 
Neanderthal group; but many points, including the accompanying 
industry as well as the fauna, indicate that it belongs probably well 
forward in this group. Morphologically, the shape of the forehead, 
the height of the vault, the size and form of the orbits, and other 
characteristics, as well as the general features of the brain, point 
towards later man, while there is yet enough to connect the specimen 
with the far past. 


Explorations in Palestine, thus auspiciously initiated, will continue ; 
some new undertakings are in fact now (early in 1929) under way 
under the leadership of Miss Garrod; and Palestine, with other parts 
of Asia Minor, may give much that will complement, and perhaps help 
us to better understand, conditions in western Europe. 


The specimen was found by laborers, in April, 1929, in a breccia- 
filled cave, located about 3 km. from the Porta Pia. It was extracted 
by the foreman and placed by the owner, Duke Grazioli, in the 
Anthropological Institute of the University at Rome. The skull was 
embedded in the breccia and before it was recognized it was damaged 
by the workmen, particularly in the most interesting region, that of 
the supraorbital arch, of which nothing remains. The lower jaw is 

A preliminary study of the specimen by S. Sergi’ indicates that 
it is the skull of a female about 30 years of age, of cranial capacity 
not exceeding 1,200 cc., with low vault, relatively large size of the 
facial parts compared to the brain case, and marked total facial prog- 
nathism. In general the skull shows the well-known Neanderthal 
type ; the third molars, however, are smaller than the first and second 
(which are equal). 

The cave and the further undisturbed site of the find were care- 
fully examined. The breccia filling the cave is of alluvial origin. It 
has yielded in the course of the excavations various bones of extinct 
animals, including Elephas antiquus, Hippopotamus major, Rhinoceros 
mercku, Cervus elaphus, Bos primigenius, and others. There are no 
worked stones. The human skull proceeds in all probability from an 
individual coeval with these forms. The age of the breccia and its 
contents is referred to as mid-Quaternary and last (Riss-Wiirm) 
interglacial, which seems incongruous, but is connected doubtless 
with some local views of the ice period. 


The La Naulette jaw was found in 1866 by Edouard Dupont in 
the cave of La Naulette, Belgium, together with an ulna and a few 
other fragments of human bones. The find was reported and the 
bones described by Dupont in the Bulletin de 1’Académie Royale de 

* Discovery of a cranium of Neanderthal type near Rome (in Italian). By 
Sergi (S.)—Riv. Antrop., 1929, Vol. 28; repr. 9 pp.,"2 pls. 

(2261 aA} G-APAINL Joy) ‘Avs oaplyper) sy Lp 

she. ee 
s, PER 
0 te ae <7? bd 




VOLT 83) Res si 


(After Keith.) 

The Galilee skull. 


Endocranial cast of the Galilee skull. (After Keith, 1027.) 


Belgique, 1866, and by Topinard in the Révue d’Anthropologie 
of the same year.” The original specimen is preserved in the Musée 
Royal d’ Histoire Naturelle, Brussels. 

The large cave of La Naulette is located in the bluffs of the left 
side of the beautiful Lesse river, not far from Dinant, Province 
of Namur. The opening of the mouth is situated at present 25 m. 
(nearly 80 ft.) above the river. The interior of the cave measures 
more than 60 m. in length by an average of 10 m. in breadth. The 
deposits in the cave were II m. in depth, but this included a con- 
siderable top layer of rock fall and debris. Between the layer that 

CouPE GEOLOGIOUE Uo Alucrens acticelles, a 6 
U. dryile pune ctoce auillows angulens dé calcare | ae 
DU of lee restes de Cindustrie et de (ar faune ide tite fy dukes 
. ; . dukone Af nweanossifere — a 
TROW DE LA NAU LETTE. Wlinon argdo-sallen ce straty'é ata Base aryile 
; arise et ossements de ruminants. 2"myeau ossitere | AULUYIONS 

5 Nagppe de stalagmite, FLUYIALES 

§ Anyile grse awe Nocs de pier’, —— 

mi: 3. Lamon aryile-siNewe stratifié 
2hable quartiewx altemant. avee des veines de Aye du 
» geasteret des conerttions stlaymiligues. Mannnouth 
1 ouche de yracier 

TV. Getlloux rules arternus TERRAIN 

Vo Angile jaune et reuge de filons EROLITHIQUE 

Ekelle de over pA mele 

Fic. 33.—The La Naulette Cave and its deposits. (C. R. Congr. préhistor.) 

gave the human jaw and the surface there were four separate stalag- 
mitic strata. 

The fauna in association with which was found the human jaw 
comprised the following forms: 

Mammoth Deer 

Woolly Rhinoceros Badger 

Brown Bear Marmot 

Horse Chamois 

Reindeer Mouflon (probably) 
Wolf Water Rat (Arvicola) 
Fox Bat 

Boar Fish 

* Vol. 22, p. 44 et seq. 
*Les caractéres simiens de la machoire de la Naulette. Rev. d’Anthrop., 
Vol. 9, pp. 385-431, 1866. 


The ossiferous layer lay 4.55 m. from the surface and was 0.60 m. 
in thickness. Beneath it were sterile layers of gravelly sand and clay. 
In addition to the human lower jaw and ulna there was also found in 
the ossiferous layer an animal bone with a neatly made artificial per- 
foration. There is no mention in the report of any stone implements. 

A final report on the exploration of the La Naulette cave, accom- 
panied by a chart showing the deposits, was made by Dupont in 1867." 
He reached the conclusion that the two human bones were in all 
probability introduced in the cave by man himself and that they were 
the remains of cannibalism. He also states definitely that notwith- 
standing a most careful search, no worked stones nor any remains 
of fireplaces were found in the cave; there were, however, intention- 
ally broken animal bones indicating human activity. 

After having submitted the human remains to various experts, 
Dupont proceeds to their description, and then gives the following 
measurements : 


Fleight=aty(chitnie.) acca ce accpolaves e nteisiato aoveranteae tetas ete 31 
Pleight vat) (Mi2e 35.5 aelesce ais col etoetomnen catcher ena er 22 
Thickness: at. chink \a:)sce seme nee on oe ren eters 15 
Mhicknesssatlastumol ares eee eee 16 

The ulna is also briefly described by Dupont (ibid.). He tells us that 
the bone, the head of which is missing, shows a “normal” form; 
that it belonged to an individual of small height ; and that its aspect 
as well as proportions indicate that it proceeds from a female skeleton, 
from which also may have come the lower jaw. The lower jaw was 
studied intensively by Topinard, and since then more or less by most 
other workers in human Prehistory. 

In 1923, thanks to Professor A. Rutot, Director of the Musée at 
Brussels, the writer was able to examine the original. The specimen 
comprises the frontal part and left body of the jaw. It is a normal 
bone of primitive build. It belonged to an adolescent female; the 
socket for M3 indicates that the tooth had not yet fully erupted. It 
resembles closely the female lower jaws of Krapina. 

The bone is stout, especially for a female; at the same time the 
body is low, indicating the female sex. The symphyseal region is 
nearly flattened from side to side between the elevations of the canine 

4 ; : P : 
Etude sur cinq cavernes explorées dans la vallée de la Lesse et le ravin de 

Falmignoul pendant 1’été de 1866. Bull. Acad. Roy. Belgique, Vol. 23, p. 244 
et seq., 1867. 


roots, as in other Neanderthalers, and is quite perceptibly receding ; 
nevertheless there is a mild eminence of a chin. The mental foramen 
is located beneath Pmz2. 

Inferiorly the bone shows the usual neanderthaloid broad surface 
for the attachment of the digastrics, with a rather marked submental 
or platysmal (H. Virchow) spine; but the surface is not as flat as 
usual in Neanderthal jaws, thus approaching somewhat more closely 
recent conditions. 

Lingually, anteriorly, there is a fairly marked shelving from above, 
mildly concave below the incisors, convex below the premolars. In- 
feriorly this shelving is bounded by a marked dull transverse ridge, 
the well known epimedial torus of early jaws. In the median line a 
slight ridge extends from the posterior part of the septum between 
the middle incisors to the middle of the torus, thus dividing the de- 
pression below the incisors into two lateral shallow fossae. This 
vertical ridge does not extend any further downward. 

Beneath the torus is a rather marked median depression, corre- 
sponding to the anthropoid fossa in this location, without any clear 
trace of the genial tubercles. Below this depression is another stout 
dull ridge or rather a bilateral welt, into which merges on each side 
the much less pronounced mylohyoid ridge. All these conditions are 
much as in other Neanderthalers, with some individual variations. 
Below the mylohyoid ridge the body of the bone is full, with but a 
very faint depression, in this respect approaching modern conditions 
and differing markedly from most of the early jaws, in which there 
are pronounced depressions. 

The teeth were macrodont, the roots of the incisors and canines 
being thick antero-posteriorly. The alveoli of the canines are con- 
siderably larger than those of the incisors or the neighboring pre- 
molars. The alveolus of the posterior premolar on the left side shows 
a three-quarter version of the tooth on its axis, so that the latter 
instead of being transversal is directed somewhat obliquely forward. 
The alveoli of the three molars show a distinct increase in size from 
before backwards. 

On the whole the jaw is clearly that of an early man and is classi- 
fied with the Neanderthal type of lower jaws. 


(MaInty AFTer ToPINarD) 

eight ab-syinphysisc res sdcre oe. vee os Osha 31 
Vero htt ate VED wi arenetaere ape teaver stetaterecae sree. sane oie 23 
‘Ehiekness max at symphysiSs.cassc.nse.- s+ s+ 14.5 

BlMtInCleMeSSiaalt, VL Sree a ey ntey epee teNPR TE ore ia reli clos 16 



Brake, C. Carter. On a human jaw from the cave of la Naulette, near Dinant, 
Belgium. Anthrop. Review, July and October, p. 295, London, 1867. 

Broca. Discussion, meme séance, p. 593. 

-, Discours a la séance suivante, méme Congres, p. 396. 

De Morrittet. Le préhistorique (Bibl. Sc. contemp.), p. 244, Paris, 1883. 

De QUATREFAGES ET Hamy. Crania ethnica, p. 23, 1875. 

Dupont, Epouarp. Etude sur les fouilles scientifiques exécutées pendant I’hiver 
de 1865-66 dans les cavernes des bords de la Lesse. Bull. Acad. Roy. Belg- 
ique. Vol. 22, pp. 31-54, 2 pls., 1866. 

Etude sur cing cavernes de la vallée de la Lesse et le ravin de Falmig- 
noul pendant l’été de 1866. Bull. Acad. Roy. Belgique, Vol. 26, p. 244 
et seq., Avril, 1867. 

Hamy. Précis de paléontologie humaine, p. 231, 1870. 

PruneER-BEyY. Sur la machoire de la Naulette. Bull. Soc. Anthr., Paris, Vol. I, 
p. 584, 1866. 

———. Discours sur la question anthropologique. Congrés internat. d’Anthrop. 
et d’Arch., p. 352, Paris, 1867. 

Toptnarp, P. Les caractéres simiens de la machoire de la Naulette. Rev. 
d’Anthrop., Vol. 9, pp. 385-431, 1886. 


The Sipka specimen is a fragment of the lower jaw of a child, 
probably between eight and ten years of age. It was found in 1880 
in the Sipka cave, near Stramberk, Moravia, by Prof. Karel J. Maska, 
the Moravian explorer. It shows six teeth—three incisors, the right 
canine, and the two right premolars, the three last named not yet 
erupted. In 1912 the original of the Sipka jaw was still in the care 
of the discoverer at Telé, Moravia, where it was seen by the writer.’ 
Since then Professor Maska has died and the specimen has come to 
the “ Zemské Museum” of Moravia, at Brno. 

The extensive but largely obstructed cave after laborious cleaning 
showed several (up to 8) distinct layers of paleolithic human occupa- 
tion, with many traces of fire. Its exploration was carried on by Maska 
from 1879 to 1883, without exhausting the deposits. 

The lower jaw was found on August 26, 1880, near the entrance of 
a so-called “‘ badger-hole,” a small side cavity. It lay in an undisturbed 
layer of ashes in the lowest cultural deposits of the cave, close to 

* Schaaffhausen, H., Ueber den menschlichen Kiefer aus der Shipka-Hohle bei 
Stramberg in Mahren. Z. Ethnol., Vol. 40, pp. 279-309, 1882. 

A detailed description of the Sipka cave (with others) and of the jaw, with 
the earlier literature on the find, is to be found in MaSka, Karel J., Der diluviale 
Mensch in Mahren, Neutitschein, 1886. Later references are included in the 
various textbooks on prehistory. 


The Naulette jaw, and a perforated (drilled) bone found in the same deposits. 
(After E. Dupont, Bull. Acad. Belgique, Vol. 22, pl. 1, 1866.) 


The jaw of Sipka, Moravia. (After K. Maska, 1886.) 


The lower jaw of Malarnaud. (After Tilhol, Bull. Soc. Philom. Paris, 1880.) 

pue ossyoed Joijy) “potoaooor sem Mef uewny ay} YyoryM wor ‘sefouRg IJvau Arenb eyny snoaieoyed ayy, 


(‘rereultaqG pue osayseg Joy) ‘apis ysis ‘mel sejourg oy L 



the wall of the hole, at the depth of 1.4 m. (44 ft.). It was enclosed 
in a clump of hardened ashes. Nearby and in the same layer elsewhere 
were quantities of bones of diluvial fauna, elephant (sp.), /hino- 
ceros tichorhinus, lion, leopard, cave lion, cave hyena, cave bear, 
brown bear, bison, wolf, horse, elk, reindeer, etc. 

The stone implements of the lower cultural layer (which enclosed 
the human jaw) are almost all of quartzite, and of crude workman- 
ship, on the whole related to the Mousterian. Professor Maska’s 
conclusions were that the cave showed*human occupation that extended 
over a large part of diluvial time; that this occupation showed three 
distinct though not wholly disconnected horizons, the lowest of which 
gave the human mandible. | 

The jaw itself is regrettably only a fragment of the chin with six 
teeth. The bone is both larger and stouter than in a modern child, 
and shows various primitive characters; and the teeth are decidedly 
large. The symphyseal part was evidently somewhat receding, though 
there is a slight indication of a chin eminence; the inferior border 
of the anterior region of the jaw shows the cupid’s bow outline, as 
it does in the lower jaw of Mauer and more or less in those of the 
Neanderthalers; the inferior border itself is broad and flattened, as 
is general in Neanderthal mandibles; lingually the bone apparently 
shelved backward; and there are other peculiarities. 

The writer has twice seen the original. The specimen makes a 
strong impression of primitiveness, and of a general relationship with 
the lower jaws of the Neanderthalers. 


The lower jaw of Malarnaud was discovered in 1889 in a small 
side chamber of the cave of Malarnaud, near the village of Montseron, 
Arize, France. It lay 2 m. (about 7 ft.) deep beneath a layer of 
stalagmite, in a mass consisting of reddish clay and a great quantity 
of bones of Quaternary animals. The fauna was characterized by 
mammoth, Rhinoceros tichorhinus, the cave lion, cave hyena, and 
cave bear. 

The bone itself is that of an adolescent, the third molars being 
still in their sockets. The erupted teeth are missing, with the exception 
of the first right molar. The jaw is not of great size and is rather low 
but stout. Like the La Naulette specimen, it shows a somewhat 
receding chin though with a slight indication of chin eminence.’ 

*For original descriptions of the find, see Filhol, H., Bull. Soc. Philomath. 
Paris, 1889, and Congrés Anthrop. préhist., p. 417, 1889. Boule, M., La caverne 
de Malarnaud; ibid.; also in his Fossil Men, p. 183, 1923. 




The lower jaw of Bafiolas was found in April, 1887, by Senor 
Pedro Alsius, a druggist of the town of Bafiolas, which lies on the 
eastern bank of the Lago di Bafiolas, about 23 km. to the NNW 

bd L£. ace Fspola 






Fic. 34.—Map of Bafiolas and vicinity. X, site of the jaw. (After Bentabol, 
Pacheco, and Obermaier.) 

of Gerona, in the northeastern part of Spain. The bone was found 
in a block of limestone proceeding from an open quarry of calcareous 
tufa, a short distance to the north of the town of Bafolas. The block 
of stone had been broken off by the quarrymen, who saw in it indica- 
tions of a row of teeth and notified the druggist of the occurrence. 


Upon carefully chiseling the rock away, Sr. Alsius discovered the 
human jaw. A portion of the tufa was left adhering to the lingual 
side of the bone for fear that the latter might crumble to pieces. 

The first notice of the discovery was published in 1909 by Pro- 
fessor Manuel Cazurro," who tells us that the specimen lay at the 
depth of about 5 m. (165 ft.) from the surface, and that the specimen 
is nearly complete, lacking only a part of the ramus. The chin is of 
but slight prominence, the incisors show prognathism, the bone is 
strong and stout, the muscular insertions very marked, and the third 
molars are larger than those that precede them; in all of which 
characteristics the jaw resembles those of La Naulette, Spy, Malar- 
naud, and other Quaternary mandibles. 

In 1912 the specimen is mentioned in a brief communication by 
E. Harlé.’ The author tells us that the jaw comes from a very hard 
travertine that was quarried for building stone, and that was origi- 
nally deposited by the lake of Bafiolas. He calls attention to the 
receding character of the symphyseal region and to the advanced 
wear of the teeth. 

A detailed description of the specimen was given in 1915 by 
FE. Hernandez-Pacheco and Hugo Obermaier.’ These authors tell us 
that the bone is thoroughly fossilized and of the same color as the 
stone that enclosed it and still fills all the interior of the specimen; 
it is very fragile ; some of the teeth already show cracks due to drying. 
The left part of the specimen had been damaged during its disengage- 
ment. The principal primitive characteristics of the jaw brought out 
by the authors are as follows: 

The transverse diameter of the left condyle, which has left its 
impression in the tufa, measures 22.9 mm; it permits an estimate 
for the bicondylar breadth of 11 cm. The neck of the condyle had 
been very short. The coronoid process, well preserved on the right, 
is low and obtuse, its height having about equalled that of the condyle. 
The notch was shallow, as in the mandibles of the Neanderthalers. 
The rami are relatively low and broad, and nearly vertical. The 

* Las cuevas de Serinya y otras estaciones prehistoricas del N. E. de Catalufia. 
Annuari del Institut de Studios Cataluns, 1909, Vol. 2, pp. 24-25, 1 fig., Bar- 
celona, 1909. 

* Harlé, E., Ensayo de una lista de Mamiferos y Aves del Cuaternario, conoci- 
dos hasta ahora en la Peninsula Ibérica. Tomo 32 del Boletin del Instituto 
Geoldgico de Espafia, pp. 135-162, Madrid, 1912. 

*La mandibula neandertaloide de Banolas. Publ. of the Comision de inves- 
tigaciones paleontologicas y prehistoricas. Memoria numero 6, 42 pp., 9 pls., 
2 figs., Madrid, rors. 


height of the left ramus from the gonion to the apex of the condyle 
was approximately 7 cm.; the vertical height from the coronoid 
process was 6.1 to 6.2 cm.; the minimum breadth of the right ramus 
is 3.99, or practically 4 cm. The bigonial diameter was about 10.3 
cm.; mandibular angle, 105°. The body of the jaw is stout, rather 
low, and very appreciably convex. The mental foramina are situated 
beneath the Pm 2. The length of the body, from the posterior border 
of the ramus to the anterior alveolar point, is 11.08 cm. 

Height of the body between second and third molars........ 2.95 cm. (R. side) 
Heizhtatemental poramenss seein eee cneeeee 2.76 (R. side) 
leicht aatnsympliysisman caer tm ceiereriieritracr erect 2.67 

The stoutness of the bone could not be measured on account of the 
rock which fills the interior of the specimen. The symphyseal region 
shows but a slight chin eminence. The angle formed by the external 
line of the symphysis and the basal plane of the body of the jaw 
measures 85°. The anterior alveolar border and the basal border 
of the jaw are on a vertical line, in front of which protrudes the 
slight eminence of the chin. The chin angle is the same as in the 
La Ferrassie mandible, but is moderately to markedly smaller than 
in other early jaws. 

There is a slight submental arching of the cupid’s-bow form; such 
arching, though generally more pronounced, is characteristic, it has 
been seen, of the Neanderthal mandibles. The border, anteriorly, is 
less flat than in most of the Neanderthalers. The dentition is com- 
plete and all the teeth, though much worn (especially anteriorly), 
are preserved. The dental arch is broad anteriorly and parabolic. 

The teeth are megadont, sound. The left M3 still shows five 
tubercles. Correct measurements of the molars are impossible due to 
the wear ; approximations show the third molar to have been at least 
as large as the second. But the crowns were not of the primitive 
relatively narrow form, being in fact probably somewhat broader 
(linguo-labially) than long. 

Messrs. Pacheco and Obermaier diagnose the jaw as that of a male 
of some 40 years of age. They believe that the mandible belongs 
to Neanderthal man and that, with the skull of Gibraltar, it represents 
the oldest so far discovered human skeletal remains in Spain. 


BonarELLI, Gurpo. La mandibula humana de Bafiolas. Revista de la Sociedad 
Argentina de Ciencias Naturales, Buenos Aires, Vol. 2, pp. 399-406, 1916. 

SERGI, SERGIO. La mandibola di Bafiolas. Estratto dalla di Antropologia, Vol. 22, 
7 pp., Roma, 1917-1018. 



A perfect knowledge and understanding of the physical character- 
istics of the Neanderthal man is still far from realization. Science 
possesses already a very respectable amount of skeletal material 
from this very important period of human differentiation, but this 
material is as yet not nearly sufficient. It covers but very fractionally 
the different parts of the long period; the number of male and 
especially female adult remains is far from sufficient for the establish- 
ment of either the mean types, or their variation; the facial parts 
are mostly wanting; the brain case is mostly so damaged as to make 
adequate study of the brain almost impossible; the bones of the 
trunk and the pelvis are nearly wholly wanting; most of the bones 
of the hands and the feet are not represented at all as yet, or repre- 
sented by isolated pieces only, in the collections; and even of the 
long bones there is not enough for definite comprehensive generali- 
zations. A résumé of the physical characteristics of the Neanderthal 
man must therefore for the present remain quite imperfect, and to 
have in many particulars more the value of indications than actual 
facts. Fortunately the indications in some important respects, at 
least, are strong and harmonious enough to constitute doubtless close 
approximations to realities. 

A critical study of the differences of the Neanderthal from later 
and present man brings with it two great appreciations. The one is 
that the more inferior of these characteristics give us many indications 
as to the nature of the ancestral stock from which Neanderthal man 
had developed. Some day it will be quite feasible to reconstruct 
from our knowledge of the Neanderthal remains the more immediate, 
at least, of the predecessors of that form. 

The other important and growing appreciation is, that in many 
respects the Neanderthal man did not stand decisively apart, or 
very far, from later man. In many characters he is seen to interdigi- 
tate with the latter; and there is no one of his characters so far 
discovered in which he does not at least connect with those of later 

A résumé of the apparent characteristics of Neanderthal man 


Size—moderate to large. 

Form—markedly dolichocephalic—to mesocephalic—to moderate 



Thickness of bones—mostly somewhat to markedly greater than 
in modern skulls of white man. 

Supraorbital ridges—in adults invariably a biarched, complete and 
more or less stout torus. 

Forehead—low and sloping to fairly high and well arched. 

Vault—low to moderately high, oval from side to side, without 
sagittal ridge or keel. 

Temporal lines—at a good distance, as a rule, from the sagittal 

Parietal eminences—often decidedly lower and more backward than 
in modern skulls but occasionally approaching conditions in the latter. 

Occipital region—relatively broad, somewhat prominent, flattened 
from above and from below, and with a more or less transverse torus. 

Sub-iniac region—often more or less concave above, and less full 
than in modern skulls. 

Temporal squamae—low to moderate. 



Petrous portions stout, on level with surrounding parts and filling 
anterior lacerated foramen ; no styloid or but slight ; stout tympanum ; 
marked premastoid groove or space (Hrdlicka). 

Glenoids—shallow to moderate depth, broad transversely, and other 

Basilar portion—relatively flat, condyles rather small; other peculi- 
arities of base. 


Glabella—even with ridges, to a fairly marked depression (from 
side to side). 

Nasal process of frontal bone—stout to very stout and interorbital 
breadth consequently large. 

Large, deep, megaseme orbits. 

Orbital plane—upper half inclined more or less forward and down- 
ward, due to protrusion of the tori; also a tendency towards increased 
inclination of plane laterally, outward and backward. 

Form of orbits—irregularly circular to irregularly quadrangular. 
Borders stout; dull to fairly well defined. 

Nasal depression—in a broad uniform concavity. 

Nasal bridge—of submedium height. 

Nasal bones—broad, stout. 

Frontal process of maxilla—stout, broad, bulging. 


Suborbital (canine) fossae—wanting, region full, perceptibly con- 
vex from side to side. 

Malars—relatively small, not protruding, sloping backward. 

Frontal process—broad and stout ; zygomatic process, above modern 
medium in breadth and strength. 

Inferior margin—no masseteric protrusion. 

Nose—broad, rather long, aperture approaching simian form; 
spine submedium to small. 

Maxilla—high, stout, and broad. 

Upper alveolar arch—high, broad. 

Dental arches—broad in front, more or less U-shaped. 

Facial prognathism—somewhat above that in modern man. 

Alveolar prognathism—moderate. 


Upper incisors—shovel-shaped and with reinforcing lingual cusps. 

Canines—modern form. 

Anterior premolars—tendency to high outer cusps. 

Upper molars—beginnings of obliquity of transverse (linguo- 
labial) axis. 

Lower molars—tendency in most cases towards more or less marked 
diminution of M3. 


More or less prognathism of incisors. Receding chin. Flatness of 
front part due to lateral protrusions caused by stout roots of canines. 
Beginnings of distinct mental eminence. 

Inferior border—tendency to cupid’s-bow form, with more or less 
marked submental (“‘ platysmal’’) spine. 

Mental foramina—often multiple, not seldom duplicate or triple, 
situated mostly farther back (beneath Mr) than in modern skulls. 
Body stout, seldom high. A marked hiatus between M3 and anterior 
border of ramus. 

Ramus—broad, moderately high, often tendency towards simian 
rounding of angle. 

Coronoid process—broad, mostly low, stout. 

Notch—mostly shallow. 

Condyle—short, condyle itself broad and mostly stout. 

Internal and occasionally also external strengthening crests of 
both the coronoid process and the condyle. 

Lingually, anteriorly, more or less marked shelving; transverse 


epimedian torus; tendency to simian depression below; small genial 


tubercles. Transverse torus connects occasionally with mylohyoid 
ridge. Below mylohyoid ridge in some cases pronounced hollows. 

Inferior border, from premolar region forward, broad, flat and 
with marked impressions of the digastrics. 

Internal pterygoid fossae—pronounced and spacious. 

Whole bone contrasts from modern by relative stoutness, length 
of body, conditions both externally and internally of the frontal 
portion, and large teeth. 

No dental decay (caries) observed thus far in any true Neander- 
thaler (La Chapelle’). 


Vertebrae—Spinous processes of lower cervicals tend to project 
straight backward; bodies—relatively low; indications of various 
other peculiarities. 

Ribs—stout, broader curvatures. 

Clavicles—relatively long, slender ; other peculiarities. 

Scapulae—not well known; occasionally primitive features. 

Pelvis and sacrum—not well known; thoroughly human, though 
evidently some peculiarities. 

Long bones—relatively large extremities. 

Bones of forearm and leg—relatively short; but little platybrachy, 
platymery, or platyenemy. Marked arching of radius and of femur. 
Pronounced muscular impressions. 

Popliteal space in femora—tends to be convex. 

Linea aspera—slightly to moderately developed. 

Head of upper articular facets of tibia tends to more retroversion 
than in most modern bones. 

Olecranon fossa of humerus—larger and deeper than in modern 
bones. Olecranon process of ulna stouter ; peculiarities—particularly 
shallowness of articular facets. 

Bones of hands and feet—Mostly not well known. 

Metacarpus and metatarsus—relatively stout. Tarsal bones stout, 
squatty ; peculiarities of articulation. 

Astragalus—stout ; short neck; sustentaculum—much developed ; 
other peculiarities. 


Ffead.—The head and face were relatively large and heavy; the 
nose must have been stout, the mouth large, chin receding. 

Size of the brain—In the size of his brain the Neanderthaler com- 
pared with man of today ; but morphologically the brain was generally 















‘aIsselIOy PT =yT ‘ayfedey) 

em bry 

(ajnog s97;V) 
el =IT 


NG 2. 

. TIOuINny 

jeyjtopueanN——S€ ‘oly 

VOL. 83 



(ajnog J1FV ) 
‘URWIYUeI.T Usepou eB pue ‘sezuedumryd & ‘e][II03 eB Jo asoY} YA poseduios ‘pes [eyJJapueaN—oEe “Oly 




eu Ye” 

Petra eae 

STAT sae 

A 32% 




Canog 493}W) 

‘URUIYUeIY Uapour 

eB jo yey} 

YyM posreduo0s 


eIOWS} [ey}Jopura 

Nowe ly 


The stature of the Neanderthal man, compared to the modern, was 
mostly short to submedium, rarely reaching medium, 

Proportions —The Neanderthal man had probably a short but 
stouter neck and a larger thorax than the man of the present day. He 
was also, in the males at least, strongly to heavily muscular. His limbs, 
particularly the lower extremities, were rather short. His hands and 
feet were broad (rather than long) and strong. 

It is doubtful if the Neanderthal man walked as perfectly erect as 
man of today. 

W eight.—Judging from the very stout walls of his long bones and 
the indicated stoutness of his muscles, the Neanderthal man weighed 
probably more in relation to stature than man weighs today; but 
there were also weaker and lighter individuals. 


The characteristics and taxonomy of the Neanderthal man have 
been written about most extensively, but often with but little origi- 
nality. New finds belonging to his family have become numerous— 
almost more numerous than legitimate new thoughts. Today it is no 
more the question of a single or a couple of Neanderthal skulls, as 
in the time of Darwin, but of « large and important section of man’s 
antiquity, documented ever more geologically, paleontologically, and 
anthropologically. But the distressing part is that the more there is, 
the less prehistory seems to know what to do with it. Of speculations 
there have been indeed enough, but most of them so far have lead not 
into the sunlight but rather into a dark, blind alley from which there 
appears no exit. 

The generalized present doctrine about Neanderthal man may best 
be seen from the following brief quotations, taken from five of the 
most recent and representative authors, two paleontologists, one an 
anatomist, and two prehistorians: 

Marcellin Boule (Fossil Men, 1923, pp. 242-43) : 

Homo neanderthalensis is an archaic species of man. It was abruptly followed 

by the Aurignacians, “who differed from the Mousterians as much in their 
superior culture as in the superiority or diversity of their physical characters.” 

M. C. Burkitt (Prehistory, 1921, p. 90): 

The race who made this culture (Mousterian) was of a low type known as 
the Neanderthal race. This appears to have been a throw back in the line of 
evolution of mankind, and this retrograde sport seems to have had no successor. 

*In the preparation of this section the writer has drawn freely on his The 
Neanderthal Phase of Man, The Huxley Memorial Lecture for 1927, Journ. Roy. 
Anthrop. Inst., pp. 249-274, Dec., 1927. Reprinted in Ann. Rep. Smithsonian 
Inst. for 1928, 1920. 



George Grant MacCurdy (Human Origins, 1924, vol. 1, pp. 209- 

During ages long subsequent to the time when the races of Piltdown and 
Heidelberg lived, there spread over the greater part of Europe the primitive 
Neanderthal race, of coarse mental and physical fiber... .. This race con- 
tributed nothing, in fact, save utilitarian artifacts, the so-called Mousterian in- 
dustry, . = = - The Aurignacians were a “new race,” which supplanted com- 
pletely the archaic Neanderthal race of Mousterian times. 

Sir Arthur Keith (The Antiquity of Man, vol. 1, pp. 189-9) : 

The most marvellous aspect of the problem raised by the recognition of Nean- 
derthal man as a distinct type is his apparently sudden disappearance. He is 
replaced, with the dawn of the Aurignacian period, by men of the same type as 
now occupy Europe..... A more virile form extinguished him. ... . He was 
not an ancestor of ours, but a distant cousin. 

Henry Fairfield Osborn (Man of the Cave Period, in Man Rises 
to Parnassus, p. 79, 1927) : 

The Neanderthals present a unique instance of arrested and perhaps partly 
retrogressive human development. 

All these opinions can probably be traced, directly or indirectly, to 
the authoritative notions arrived at during the earlier years of this 
century, on material less ample than at present, by one of the foremost 
students of Neanderthal man, Gustav Schwalbe. 

There were, and are, however, also other views. From Huxley and 
Busk to Karl Pearson; from Fraipont and Lohest, Houzé, Kollmann, 
and Sergi to Stolyhwo, Gorjanovi¢-Kramberger, and, most recently, 
Weidenreich, there have been expressed opinions that Neanderthal 
man was not a different species, and that he did not completely die 
out, but became gradually transformed into later human forms, from 
which in turn developed man of today. 

The problem of Neanderthal man, as it now exists, presents the 
following uncertainties: It is not yet properly known just where, 
when, and how he began, and how far eventually he extended 
geographically ; it is not yet definitely known just who he was and 
what were his phylogenetic relations to the man that succeeded him ; 
and it is not known plainly just why and how he ended, and whether 
or not he left any progeny. Besides which there are still but more 
or less imperfect ideas regarding the exact length of his period, his 
average physique, his variations and sub-races, the reasons for his 
relatively large brain, his changes in evolutionary direction. And 
there are other uncertainties. It thus appears that, notwithstanding 
his already numerous collected remains, Neanderthal man is still far 
from being satisfactorily known to us taxonomically, chronologically, 
and anthropologically. 


This state of uncertainties and of paralyzing premature conclusions 
concerning one of the main early phases of humanity, is a serious 
obstacle to further progress, and deserves all possible attention, even 
if, without further material, it may be possible to do little more 
than bring into the subject a greater degree of order and compre- 
hensiveness; to point out here and there facts that have not been 
sufficiently weighed; and to call attention to some of the inconsis- 
tencies in the prevalent assumptions. 

The presentation will be as far as possible quite neutral ; and I wish 
to acknowledge my deep indebtedness for many of the data to the 
authors given in the references, as well as to those who in the past, 
and again during the years just passed, have facilitated for me the 
study of original Neanderthal sites and materials. 



The only workable definition of Neanderthal man and period seems, 
for the time being, to be, the man and period of the Mousterian 
culture. An approach to a somatological definition would be feasible 
but might for the present be rather prejudicial. 


The territory already known to have been occupied by Neanderthal 
man was collectively a very large one, including, roughly, all Europe 
south of a line drawn from southern England to the northern limits 
of Belgium and thence, with a moderate curve northward, over 
Germany and Poland to Crimea and possibly the Caucasus, with 
parts (at least) of northern Africa and of Asia Minor. Whether 
he reached farther east, southeast, or south, must, notwithstanding 
some claims, be regarded as still uncertain.’ 

The whole great territory over which his remains have been dis- 
covered was not occupied by Neanderthal man synchronously, or 
continually, or with equal density. He was evidently not a nomad, 
though probably still more or less of a rover who stayed in a place 
for a more or less prolonged time and then moved away. Some of 
the deposits he left show up to six different layers of reoccupation 
(Grimaldi, Olha, La Quina, Le Moustier, Krapina, etc.). The density 
of his remains is greatest in France and Belgium, least in the northern 
limits of his territory and in the mountainous parts, particularly the 

*See Addendum, written after this paper was in type. 


Alps, Carpathians, and the Balkan peninsula. The distribution of 
Neanderthal man in Europe is of much significance, as will be seen 


The boundaries and duration of the Neanderthal period are those 
of the Mousterian culture. They may now be delimited with some 
precision, though not finality, by data of paleontological, geological 
and archeological nature. 


Neanderthal man coexisted with a large series of now extinct 
animals: the question is, how intimately are these forms associated 
with his coming and going. The Mousterian culture is the culture, 
essentially, of the earlier times of the mammoth, the woolly rhinoceros, 
the cave lion, bear, and hyena, the horse, the old ox, the bison, the 
reindeer, the stag. There are many other forms, but these are the 
most characteristic. 

The Mousterian culture neither comes in, however, nor ends with 
any of these large mammals. The mammoth, derived probably from 
the Trogontherium, is present since at least the Acheulian and lasts 
to, if not beyond, the end of the Magdalenian time. The cave lion, 
cave bear, and cave hyena, as well as the horse, ox, bison, and even 
the reindeer are all there since or before the beginning of the 
Acheulian, and they last throughout the Mousterian, Aurignacian, 
Solutrean, and Magdalenian periods, to disappear gradually during 
the latter, or persist to historic times. 

Mousterian man begins apparently during the latter part of the 
last great interglacial and extends deep into the final glacial time, 
without perceptible direct relation to the fauna. His remains at 
Montiéres, Villefranche, Ehringsdorf, the rock-shelter Olha, some 
of the Mentone caves, and elsewhere, are still associated with the 
remains of the Elephas antiquus, the Merck’s rhinoceros, the large 
lion, and the panther (leopard). On the other hand, various Arctic 
species (Ovibos, Gulo, Canis lagopus, Lepus arcticus, etc.) come in 
as the cold advances during the Mousterian period, without, however, 
marking either its beginning or its end. There is, therefore, no defi- 
nite line of faunal demarcation for either the beginning or the end of 
the Mousterian period, Neanderthal man did not come in with any 
special fauna, nor did he go out with any—all of which are facts 
of importance. 



Geological information about the Mousterian period is not as 
precise or full as is desirable,’ but it permits of several valuable 
conclusions. A survey of the better-known Mousterian sites, from 
Germany and Belgium southward, shows that fully one-third of 
them were in the open, while of the remainder quite a few (La Quina, 
Sergeac, La Ferrassie, etc.) are found in and about shallow rock- 
shelters that could not have afforded much protection. In Switzer- 
land, moreover, the earlier Mousterian man lived in caverns at a 
high elevation (Wildkirchli, 4,905 ft.; Drachenberg, 8,028 ft.).° All 
of this indicates that the climate during a considerable part of the 
Mousterian period was not severe enough generally to drive man into 
the caves, or even down from the mountains, thus pointing to inter- 
glacial rather than glacial conditions. There is no evidence of any 
critical geological manifestations, either about the beginning or about 
the end of the Mousterian period. 

The cultural remains of the Mousterian in the open stations, as 
well as those in caves, denote both considerable age and long duration 
of the period. In the open the remains lie mostly in old gravels or 
sand, rarely in clay or loess, or in travertine rock of lacustrine origin. 
There may be two or three cultural strata or horizons (as at Ste. 
Walburge, High Lodge, Ipswich, Amiens, etc.), indicating a repeated 
occupation of the same site after shorter or longer intervals, though 
there have not been found as many occupational layers as in some 
of the caves. 


Neither paleontology nor geology, evidently, explains Neanderthal 
man ; perhaps we may learn more from archeology. 


The chief activities of man in nature relate to his housing and 
clothing, to the obtaining and preparing of his food, and to the 
manufacture of tools, utensils, and weapons. Let us see briefly how 
Neanderthal man compared in these respects with his forbears and 
his followers. 

‘Many details are given in Bayer, Jos. Der Mensch im Eiszeitalter, Leipzig 
and Wien, 1927; in Werth, E., Der fossile Mensch, 3 parts, Berlin, 1921-1928: 

and in the books of Boule, Keith, MacCurdy, Obermaier, Sollas and others on 
prehistory cited at the end of this treatise. 

*See MacCurdy, G. G., Human Origins, Vol. 1, 1924. 


Housing.—There is a prevalent idea that Neanderthal man was 
essentially a cave-dweller, and this idea seems generally to carry 
with it a sense of inferiority. The records now available throw 
a different light on this matter. Analysis of 360 better-known 
paleolithic sites in Europe and the neighboring regions (from records 
compiled principally by MacCurdy) * gives the following interesting 
information : 


Period Sites in the Open Rock-Shelter or Cave 

Number Number 

recorded Per cent. recorded Per cent. 
Pre-Chelleant a0 oe en ee II 100 ~ i 
Chelleaties 0.5.52 ak eave Hooke 32 04 2 6 
Acheuliants ceca aoe ceey ae ee = 36 7S 10 22 
MOuUStEnian «066 feces oo oh. 2 45 34 88 66 
NUIONACIAN =p.) tae ts Aa a ese 24 18 112 82 
Solutrean sa ee ocsy--3 set srernhr ot 10 I4 62 56 
Macdalentanegar ssn ecient 17, 10 148 90 
Azilian and Tardenoisian....... 4 9.5 38 90.5 
Accompanying Neolithic....... 22 Bons 76 T7aeS) 

The figures and chart (fig. 38) show some curious and important 
facts. Man begins as a dweller in the open, but already since the 
warm Chellean period he commences also to utilize rock-shelters and 
caverns, and then, as the climate cools, he gradually takes more and 
more to the caves. In these phenomena the Mousterian period shows 
nothing striking, nothing individual. It falls harmoniously into the 
curve of the progress of cave-dwelling, to be followed equally har- 
moniously by the Aurignacian and the succeeding periods. Mousterian 
man occasions no perceptible disturbance in the human housing con- 
ditions of the time, and what is even more remarkable, no disturbance 
or change whatsoever is found to be occasioned, by the advent of the 
Aurignacian. Aurignacian man follows in the footsteps of his prede- 
cessor without a marked interruption. Like the Neanderthaler, he 
builds, in the open, huts of perishable materials that leave no trace, 
and he utilizes the caves exactly as much as, and eventually even more 
than the Neanderthal man. He continues, in fact, on many of the 
same sites and in most of the same caves that the latter has used, 
without introducing any detectable innovation. He, also, like the 
Neanderthal man, leaves here and there a whole series of occupational 

* Human Origins, Vols. 1 and 2, 1924. 

VOL. 83 




eon 0 

a | H Pe 
rales a Ht me 
a +01 
Sere [aail {oe es 
See lone a) os ae a | aT 
Bez aes a (i a i i | 4 
easels | eh a |e oe i a 
ss aa ae et ef ano eect fo Jt of fe nf Js] een Ti i Vs TS | ae on | a ot ee a a 
es i a a | es et en a es a | fat a [8 pe tsa oc 
a i a] a] ata is it] (ez (ei a | 
|e ae et | a i a ae ef i Pa 
| | | fl | i] | i || | a a S| i 0h 
ot canoe | et nan | en a [eee i ie i [eo i | ec a ft 
tee eo ef | ca Fie cn J ef] i a ot J [Sa NG BT | ee 
ie | fa oe fea 8 te of] 8 [a J ss cepa NT a TN pitt 
ea | oe |e a of ee ofl Fi ee aos ea fae i a a pres i a Ta i RT LE ACYL 
os fn tc i ft HH NEE -H [| 
os] a aa a a i es ki eg [i TS a 
ees Je Ft aa ne fe] in am | en] 0 8 [sf a eh | Ns i | a i 
fee st fe Le enfant i J Uf is a ene as eT I SA - 
ai sf sa om sce ee oJ i Pi i fin ern af Nia] ee |e af 
ea OA oa | ie ta ae ie | int so fat ee ea as | | i a oe ee Te of 
seat nia ef no | ||] [JE Ye [eT] LL Naa es i 50] 
af a | a a i eis HH aN | E} tt 
FS fa | | a fe a ee i |e fs Pe HEBESabs rt TA (| ss 08 
i |S | an | at Fs alt lng tn i [et 2 is [ef psec a Fa tT 
i a a | seme meta i ee se a see eo it fe | ee [fas a 
| FS (a te | a ies isa [eu ae eo fi [fo] is (a ean SS Ta fs a 
PT Ree ee ee ee fa oe 0a ft |i [a Je a | wa a ffs sc 0b 
BEES EEE SoCo eee 

sf i Le al a fed rea a (oa fn Ls Fg AONE POT SSID TP EEE EEE EEE EEE EER 001 

"YW ryooN) uVvIVITY noimajopbvyy, NWILIN IOS ‘viuhuny NWI VIISWOMY nv7VNI4Y) KUVI7AAM NING AMR WL, 




strata which testify to much the same habits of life. Yet Aurignacian 
man is often represented as a new-comer, of a different species from 
that of the Neanderthaler, and mentally vastly superior. 
Clothing—About the clothing of Neanderthal man nothing is 
known directly, as is also the case with Acheulian and Aurignacian 
man. But the cooling climate, on the one hand, with the much 
increased numbers of tools with a cutting-edge and especially of 
scrapers that occur in the Mousterian and later deposits, on the other 
hand, indicate extensive preparation of the skins of animals, to be 
used, doubtless for clothing and bedding. No sudden change in this 
connection is observable from the Acheulian to the Mousterian or 
from the Mousterian to the Aurignacian period. 
Food.—Neanderthal man was chiefly a hunter and trapper of the 
larger mammals of his time. He knew fire, but knew not domestication 
of animals, or agriculture. He compared in these respects with the 

preceding and following man as follows: 


Acheulian man 

Chiefly a hunter and trap- 

Fisher (?). 

Use of molluscs—no trace 

Knew fire. 

Preparation of food: 
probably by roasting on 
fire or coals—no trace 
of any vessels for boil- 

No agriculture. 

No domestication of ani- 

Bones broken for brains 
and marrow. 

Bones and refuse accumu- 
lations in inhabited 
caves, and in front of 

No trace of storage of 

Pictorial representation 
of hunted animals—not 

Mousterian man 


Aurignacian man 

Chiefly a hunter 
probably trapper. 

Fisher (probably). 

Use of molluscs (?). 

Knew fire. 

Preparation of food: 
probably by roasting on 
fire or coals—no trace 
of any vessels for boil- 

No agriculture. 

No domestication of ani- 
mals (?). 

Bones broken for brains 
and marrow. 

Bones and refuse accumu- 
lations in inhabited 
caves and in front of 

No trace of storage of 

Pictorial representation 
of hunted animals— 
none known yet posi- 

and | 

Chiefly a hunter and trap- 

Use of molluscs. 

Knew fire. 

Preparation of food: 
probably by roasting on 
fire or coals—no trace 
of any vessels for boil- 

No agriculture. 

No domestication of ani- 
mals (?). 

Bones broken for brains 
and marrow. 

Bones and refuse accumu- 
lations in inhabited 
caves and in front of 

No trace of storage of 

Pictorial representation 
of hunted animals— 
gradual development 
from crude beginnings. 


Evidently, in food and food habits, as in housing, Mousterian man 
was quite like both the Acheulian man that preceded him, and the 
Homo sapiens that followed. 

Tools —The bulk of the Mousterian period is characterized by a 
definite phase of stone industry, but so are all the periods before and 
after it. It has no sudden beginning. It uses flint where this can 
be had, as do all the other industries ; where flint is absent or scarce, 
it employs quartzite and other stones. The use of bone begins in the 
Mousterian, to increase henceforward. The period shows three stages 
of cultural evolution, the lower, middle, and upper, as do also later 
the Aurignacian and the Magdalenian periods. The implements range 
from crude to beautifully made (as at La Ferrassie, La Quina, 
Le Moustier, Jersey, Sergeac) ; the technique is partly different from, 
but in general not inferior to, either the late Acheulian or the earlier 
Aurignacian; and there are indications that there was no general 
sudden ending of the culture. 

On the whole the Mousterian industry, though characteristic, does 
not provide evidence of anything wholly new and strange, intercalated 
between the Acheulian and the Aurignacian, beginning abruptly by 
displacing the former or ending suddenly through displacement by 
the latter. There is much in fact at either end that appears to be, 
more or less, of a transitional nature. 

Thus, even in H. F. Osborn’s opinion (Obermaier, 1924, p. x), the 
Mousterian “constitutes a further evolution of the two earlier — 
cultures ’—the Chellean and the Acheulian. At Ehringsdorf, in the 
lower travertine, “the technique of the chipping is Acheulian, but 
the forms are largely Mousterian” (MacCurdy, Human Origins, 
1924, vol. 2, p. 392). According to Burkitt (Prehistory, 1921, p. 27), 
: . workers in Dordogne find a great difficulty in distinguishing 
between Upper Acheulian beds and Lower Mousterian beds. In fact, 
M. Peyrony often only solves the problem by the absence or presence 
of reindeer.” And quotations of similar import could be multiplied. 
As to the upper limits—at the Cotte de Ste. Brelade, Jersey, excavated 
by Nicolle, Sinel, and Marett, the upper (fifth) layer gave graceful 
implements “that may be either upper Mousterian or Aurignacian ” 
(Burkitt). At Le Moustier, the type-station of the Mousterian in- 
dustry, the upper rock-shelter showed eight layers, “the top one 
being Aurignacian, the second transitional (Audi), and the rest 
Mousterian, except the seventh which was sterile.” The lower rock- 
shelter was even more instructive. The section from top to base was: 
6. Lower Aurignacian; 5. Transitional (Audi); 4. Typical Mous- 


terian; 3. Mousterian with Audi forms and few coups-de-poing; 2. 
Mousterian with some Audi forms and many coups-de-poing; 1. 
Some Audi forms, no coups-de-poing (Burkitt, 1921, p. 93). But 
perhaps the best comprehensive statement on this subject is that of 
MacCurdy, one of the oldest and most cautious students of prehistory. 
In his Human Origins, 1924, vol. 1, pp. 161-2, we read: “ In certain 
French stations, a transition from the Mousterian to the Lower Aurig- 
nacian occurs, as for example, at Le Moustier (Dordogne), La 
Verriére (Gironde), and especially at the rock-shelter of Audi in the 
village of Les Eyzies. In comparison with Mousterian points, those 
of Audi are more slender and are slightly recurved. The convex 
margin is rendered blunt by retouching so as not to injure the hand 
‘ while using the opposite margin for cutting or other purposes. Such 
a tool, as much a knife, or scraper, as a point, bridges the gap between 
the Mousterian point or double scraper and the Lower Aurignacian 
blades of the Chatelperron type. At Audi it is associated with small 
cleavers and disks, scrapers, spoke-shaves, asymmetric points, and 
scratchers. The Grotte des Fées at Chatelperron, though distinctly 
Aurignacian, is so closely related to the transition stage that the 
chronologic difference must be small. An intermediate stage is recog- 
nizable at La Ferrassie (Dordogne).” 

The Audi culture is still somewhat controversial, Abbé Breuil (re- 
cent letter to the writer) regarding it as “ degenerate Mousterian.” 
Notwithstanding this, the impression is growing that the more the 
initial and the terminal stages of the Mousterian industry are becom- 
ing known, together with the late Acheulian and the earliest Aurig- 
nacian, the less abrupt and striking appear their differences and the 
greater grows the feeling that they are not absolutely separated. Some 
interesting things in this connection have been encountered at Spy 
as well as at Krapina, and others are now being gathered by Absolon 
in Moravia. 


The sponsors of the view that Aurignacian man was a man of 
different and superior species to the man of the Mousterian period, 
conceive him generally as an invader who came from somewhere 
outside the Neanderthal area, overwhelmed the established less 
capable species, brought about its rapid annihilation, and replaced 
it wholly, over all the great domain over which it once extended. 
These ideas, however, are never expressed very clearly, and little 
thought is given to the incongruities they involve. 



They would imply, first of all, the invasion of Europe during the 
height of the last glaciation. This is not in harmony with the main laws 
of human and biological spread, namely: Movement in the direction 
of least resistance, and movement in the direction of better material 
prospects, which latter are, first of all, climate and food. In the entire 
history of Europe, free movements of men have tended always toward 
“a place in the sun” and away from the cold. 

Such views postulate, next, relatively large numbers of the new- 
comers to suffice for the vast task. But such large numbers would 
necessarily mean somewhere near a still larger mother-population, and 
there is no trace, either in western Asia or northern Africa, the only 
regions from which such invasions at those times would have been 
practicable, of any such great Aurignacian population. Moreover 
even in those parts everywhere the Aurignacian follows upon the 

It is a very serious question whether in paleolithic times, when man 
was without tamed animals, without stocks of non-perishable food, 
dependent wholly on hunting without yet a bow and arrow, and in 
the imperfect social organization of that time, any larger armed 
invasion would have been feasible. A peaceful extension, on the other 
hand, would not lead to the annihilation or expulsion of the invaded 
population, but to a greater or lesser amalgamation with the native 
stock. A complete displacement of an extensive group by any agency 
is difficult to conceive, and there would remain to be explained the 
fate of the displaced people. 

It stands to reason that these great difficulties would have to be 
satisfactorily explained away before there could be a general in- 
telligent acceptance of an Aurignacian invasion with Mousterian 

Finally, the coming of a distinct and superior species of people 
ought to have left a very tangible record on the sequence and nature 
of the cultural levels of the two stocks. 

As to sequence, 257 of the better-known and recorded Mousterian 
sites (as recorded by MacCurdy) show, on analysis, the conditions 
given in the table on page 337. 

The Mousterian culture, in nearly one-half of its stations in the 
open, follows, it is seen, direct upon the Acheulian ; and the Aurigna- 
cian, in very nearly one-half of the rock-shelters and.caves, and in 
not far from one-third of the stations in the open, follows upon the 
Mousterian. It would seem that these figures speak for a rather 
close relation of these peoples in their habits, and that particularly 


between the Mousterians and Aurignacians—who should represent 
two different species of man, one greatly superior to the other. 

An objection may here be raised to the effect that the number of 
available, and especially of the more suitable, caves was limited and, 
therefore, the same caves that once served the Neanderthalers had to 
be used also by the shelter-needing Aurignacians ; but this point is 
invalidated by the showing of the Solutreans and Magdalenians, who 
were even more cave-dwellers than the Aurignacians, yet are found 
collectively in less than one-fourth of the Mousterian caves. Another 
point is, that it is not always the lower or earliest Aurignacian that 


oe Open Stations Rock-Shelters and Caves 
Mousterian Topped by: No. Per cent No. Per cent 
(Noveullture))js25)) 22506 ck «5: (34) (55-7) (15) (18.9) 
INcOUEMIC ener cei ceoc 4 6.6 4 Fen 
Magdalenian..........----- 3 4.9 9 11.4 
Solutrean. ais s5 PAlvossinters 2 Bg 10 127 
SIPAICOMEMIC Sass wees 2 I 1.6 2 2.5 
AIISMACIAT ta eeiy-e -yi9) = 17 27.9 39 49.4 
(61) ae (79) 
Mousterian = 
(54) ee (63) 
Mousterian Reposing on: 
NGheUlian ere ear aie : 24 44.4 4 6.3 
(Clits Se doke seacweoseace 5 9.4 3 4.8 
(Notculture) sess ets eke (25) (46.3) (56) (88.9) 

ip SSS ee Allin 6, ee es 

follows upon the Mousterian. But such a discord is common to all 
the periods. It may mean a discontinuity, and may also mean a 
persistence of any given culture in some localities longer than in 
others. In both cases, however, it would speak against a sudden 
general displacement of one culture. 

There is evidently much here, once more, to be explained by those 
who conceive of Aurignacian man as very distinct from, and superior 
to, the Mousterian, and as having suddenly replaced the latter. 


The Aurignacian period does not appear to come in full-fledged, 
as is sometimes taken for granted, but to develop locally, both in 
industry and art, from humbler beginnings (Breuil, Burkitt, Evans, 


MacCurdy, et al.). Also there seems to be more difference in these 
respects between the lower and the middle Aurignacian than there 
is between the lower Aurignacian and the upper Mousterian with the 
Audi and the Chatelperron stages. 

It may, moreover, be unjust to assume that Mousterian man was 
devoid of art-sense. He may not have left any designs in caves 
(though that is not perhaps certain), but the same is true of the 
bulk of the Neolithic and many other early, as well as later, popula- 
tions. How many such designs, or other permanent forms of art, 
for instance, have been left by the post-Neanderthal man of England, 
or Belgium, or Germany, Moravia, Poland, or Russia? How many 
have been left more recently by such highly artistic people as the 
Slovaks and the peoples of the Carpathians and the Balkans? And 
how many cave designs comparable to those of southern France and 
northern Spain do we find in the whole continent of America, with 
all its able and highly artistic population, a large part of which— 
the Lagoa Santa-Algonkin type—may even be blood-related to the late 
Aurignacians ? On the other hand, practically a replica of the European 
cave-art was produced by the lowly Bushmen of South Africa, who 
certainly were no superior race or species. 

That the Mousterians may not have been lacking in artistic sense 
is indicated by some of their beautiful implements from La Quina 
and other stations ; by the beautiful topaz and then by a crystal cleaver 
found in 1925-6 by the American school at Sergeac ; by the decorated 
bone fragment from La Ferrassie ; and possibly by the pierres-figures 
(ce. g., Roellecourt, Dharvent), and used chunks of manganese oxide, 
found occasionally in the Mousterian deposits (e. g., La Quina, Henri 
Martin). Sir Arthur Evans tells us that, “ When we turn to the 
most striking features of this whole cultural phase, the primeval arts 
of sculpture, engraving, and painting, we see a gradual upgrowth and 
unbroken tradition. From mere outline-figures and simple two- 
legged profiles of animals we are led on step by step to the full 
freedom of the Magdalenian artists ”’ (‘‘ New Archaeological Lights on 
the Origins of Civilization in Europe,” by Sir Arthur Evans, Science, 
1916, n. s. Vol. 44, No. 1134, p. 406). MacCurdy is even more direct : 
“ The inception, development, and decay of Quaternary art all took 
place during the upper paleolithic period. The beginnings of sculp- 
ture, engraving and fresco are traceable to the Aurignacian epoch ” 
(MacCurdy, Human Origins, Vol. 1, p. 155). And there are some 
very good words of appreciation of the abilities of Mousterian man in 
Sir Arthur Keith’s recent two volumes (The Antiquity of Man, 1925, 


Vol. 1, p. 223). Thus archeology fails also, as did paleontology and 
geology, in isolating Neanderthal man, and in separating him from 
the succeeding forms of humanity. 


The crucial part of the whole question of Neanderthal man is, how- 
ever, that of the evidence of the skeletal material, for it is essentially 
upon this that the separateness and discontinuance of the Neanderthal 
type of man has been based. It would probably be easy to harmonize 
all the rest of the differences between Neanderthal and later man with 
the idea of a simple evolution and transmission, were it not for the 
obstacle of the Neanderthal man’s skulls and bones. These impress 
one by such marked differences from those of any later man, that a 
bridging over of the gap has, to many, seemed impossible. 

It will be well in this connection to contrast the Neanderthal re- 
mains with those from the Acheulian on one side, and those from the 
Aurignacian and the following periods on the other. The results are 
unexpected. There is nothing authentic from Acheulian times; and 
there is less, in the number of finds, from the Aurignacian than there 
is from the Mousterian period. Moreover, what there is from the 
Aurignacian is found, on consulting the details of the discoveries, 
to be essentially middle and upper, rather than the most needed early 
Aurignacian. The data leave a strong impression that the material, 
and especially that from the earlier portion of the Aurignacian period, 
is still far from sufficient for drawing from it any far-reaching 

Taking the Neanderthal remains by themselves, we find that, not- 
withstanding their defects, they constitute a very respectable array 
of precious material. Let us see what it teaches. If we placed all 
this material on a table before us, ranged by the date of discovery, 
we should see a remarkable assembly of more or less deficient or 
fragmentary skulls, jaws, and bones, with a good number of loose 
teeth, the specimens differing widely in color, weight, state of 
petrifaction, and in principal morphological characters. We should 
be struck by the prevailing aspect of age and somatological inferiority 
of the material, but the arrangement would soon prove unsatisfactory 
and we should proceed to another. As there is not enough for a 

“Tn size of brain Neanderthal man was not a low form. His skill as a flint- 
artisan shows that his abilities were not of a low order. He had fire at his com- 
mand, he buried his dead, he had a distinctive and highly evolved form of cul- 
ture—Neanderthal man was certainly not a dawn form of humanity.” 


geographical subdivision, it would be logical to try next an arrange- 
ment of the specimens by their antiquity, from the oldest to the latest. 
The indications are that the Mousterian period was a long one, and 
of three cultural stages—the inferior, middle, and superior. We 
should like, therefore, at least to arrange our material by these stages. 

But we strike at once great difficulties. The very type-specimen 
of the lot, the Neanderthal skeleton, lacks direct chronological identi- 
fication. There were neither animal nor industrial remains with it, 
or, if there were, they were not saved. Everything indicates that it 
is very old: physically it is in every one of its parts a prototype of 
Mousterian man; chronologically it may be even pre-Mousterian. 
Similar and other difficulties confront us in the case of the first 
Gibraltar skull and the Bafolas jaw, the important Krapina remains, 
and the Ehringsdorf jaws; and it is not certain just where within the 
period to place most of the remaining specimens. The final conclusion 
is that, if the eyes are shut to the somatological characters of the re- 
mains, a satisfactory chronological grading of them becomes very 
difficult and uncertain. 

The state of preservation or petrifaction of the remains is a 
question of local geophysics and geochemistry, and therefore incapable 
of giving any fair basis for classification. Thus there remain only 
the somatological characteristics of the skulls and bones themselves, 
and the endeavor to arrange them on this basis proves of much interest. 

The general physical characters of the Neanderthal race have been 
more or less summed up by a number of eminent anatomists and 
anthropologists, including especially Schwalbe, Boule, Keith, and 
Sollas. The main features of the average Neanderthaler are therefore 
fairly well known. They include a moderate stature, heavy build, and 
a good-sized, rather thick, oblong skull, with pronounced supraorbital 
torus, low forehead, low vault, protruding occiput, large, full upper 
maxilla, large nose, large teeth and a large, more or less heavy lower 
jaw with receding chin. To which may be added stout bones of the 
skeleton, particularly the ribs and the bones of the lower part of the 
body, femora and tibiae with heavy articular extremities, the tibia 
relatively short and with head more than now inclined backward, a 
peculiar astragalus, and a variety of secondary primitive features. 
To this generalized type some of the specimens conform, it is soon 
seen, much more than others. It is realized that the general conception 
of the type has been built up essentially on the Neanderthal, Spy 
No. 1, the La Chapelle and the adult La Quina skulls and skeletons, 
but that from this generalization there are many aberrations. 


An arrangement of the specimens in morphological order, beginning 
with those that show the most primitive or old features and advancing 
gradually towards more modern standards, is now in order, and the re- 
sults are very striking. The first strong impression is that, with all the 
seeming riches, there is still not nearly enough material for satis- 
factory grading. The next appreciation is that it is hard to grade 
whole lots, but that it is necessary to grade the skulls, jaws, teeth, 
and bones separately. In one and the same skeleton are found parts 
and features that are very primitive and far away from man’s later 
types, with parts and features-that are practically modern; and every 
skeleton is found to differ in these respects. Here is facing us, 
evidently, a very noteworthy example of morphological instability, 
instability, plainly, of evolutionary nature, leading from old forms 
to more modern. 

The Neanderthal skull and skeleton proper, in all the parts that 
have been saved, is found to stand at the base of the series. It lacks, 
regrettably, the lower jaw and the teeth, as well as the sternum, most 
of the scapulae, and the ribs, vertebrae, sacrum, the leg, the hand and 
the foot bones. Of what is present, the farthest from modern type 
is the skull, the next being the thigh bones; the nearest to modern 
forms, though still somewhat distinct, are the bones of the upper 
extremity. The closest in general to the Neanderthal skeleton is 
Spy No. 1, La Chapelle, and apparently the Le Moustier youth. But 
Spy No. 1 has almost primitive-modern jaws with practically modern 
teeth ; the La Chapelle shows high cranial capacity, an “ ultra-human ” 
nose, and a strongly developed nasal spine ; the Le Moustier skull has 
a higher vault and forehead, with less protrusion of the occiput ; while 
the bones of the upper extremity in all three approach closely to the 
modern types. Thus, even in these most nearly related four specimens, 
there is in evidence a considerable variability, with more or less ad- 
vance in various parts in the direction of later man. 

These facts deserve, undoubtedly, earnest consideration. But there 
is much more to be learned. Taking the remainder of the skulls, jaws, 
and bones attributed to the Neanderthal man, it is seen that both the 
variability and the number of characters that tend in the direction of 
later man increase considerably. The Krapina series, by itself, is 
probably more variable from the evolutionary point of view than 
would be any similar series from one locality at the present. This is 
true in respect to the cranial form, the development of the forehead, 
the jaws, the teeth, and that of some of the bones of the skeleton. 
The additional Neanderthal remains manifest signs of similar insta- 


bility of type and of tendencies of an evolutionary nature, this being 
particularly true of Spy No. 2, and of the recently discovered Galilee 
and Ehringsdorf crania. In his excellent description of the Galilee 
specimen, Sir Arthur Keith has shown that it has a fair forehead 
with “ no suggestion in the vaulting of its frontal bone that the roof 
of the skull was low and flat, as is usual in Neanderthal skulls.” And 
in his fine reports on the Ehringsdorf (1925, 1927) cranium, F. Wei- 
denreich shows us a specimen with even better developed frontal 
region, and a vault of good height. 

But the most instructive, though most neglected, specimens in this 
connection are the crania of Spy, Belgium. Here the student is 
confronted with a find in the same terrace and deposits, at the same 
level, and but 6 feet apart, of two adult male skeletons from the 
later Mousterian time. One of these skeletons, No. 1, has a skull 
the vault of which is like a replica of that of the Neanderthal cranium, 
with typically Neanderthal bones of the skeleton. But this same skull 
is associated with upper and lower jaw and teeth that may be dupli- 
cated today among the lower races. And the skull of the second 
skeleton is so superior in size, shape, height of the vault, and height 
of the forehead, to No. 1, that the morphological distance between the 
two is materially greater than that between No, 2 and some of the 
Aurignacian crania, such as the Most (Brux) or Brno No. 1 (Brunn) 

About the most distinguishing and important marks of difference 
of the typical Neanderthaler from later man are, we may repeat, the 
lowness of his head, with low receding forehead and a peculiay pro- 
truding occiput ; a heavy, supraorbital torus; a heavy, chinless jaw ; 
and, as determined from intracranial casts, a low type of brain. It 
will be well to see how these characters stand the light of our present 
knowledge. Lowness of the vault, low and receding forehead, and 
projecting occiput, all show in the series of the Neanderthal skulls 
known today a large range of gradation, the lower limits of which 
are well below, but the upper grades of which are well within, the 
range of variation of the same characters in later, and even present, 
man. There exists today a whole great strain of humanity, extending 
from Mongolia deep into America, which is characterized by low 
vault of the skull (see Cat. Crania, U. S. Nat. Mus., Nos. 1 and 2; 
also Bull. 33, Bur. Amer. Ethnol.). Low foreheads are frequent in 
prehistoric America (Bull. 33, Bur. Amer. Ethnol., and Proc. U. S. 
Nat. Mus., Vol. 35, pp. 171-75, 1908). The pronounced Neanderthal 
occiput, such as shown by the La Chapelle, La Quina and La Ferrassie 


Skulls of Most (Briix), upper; Podkoumok, middle; and Brno (Briinn) 
No. 1, lower: showing transitional features. (Hrdliéka.) 


Transitional form: Lower jaw of an Australian woman. (Skull No. 331,347. 
U.S. National Museum. ) 

(‘uinosnyy [euoneN 
‘SQ ‘€Zo€hz ‘oN uaudedS) *(eYQNPIH) edA} proyey}sopuvou we Surmoys ‘(quod01) [NYS uvipuy uesaq V 



skulls, would be difficult to fully match in later man; but on the one 
hand the character is not present or marked in all the Neanderthalers, 
while on the other there are decided approximations to it among recent 

A heavy supraorbital torus, such as is common to the Neanderthal 
skulls, is not found in later man; but not all the Neanderthalers had 
the torus equally developed (e. g., Gibraltar), and, as has been pointed 
out by Huxley, Sergi, Stolyhwo, the author and others there are later 
male skulls in which there is a marked approach to the torus. A whole 
series of specimens may be mentioned (Podkoumok, Brix, Brno 
No. 1, Predmost, Obercassel, Alcolea, Djebel-Fartas, two neolithic 
skulls at Warsaw, the neolithic miner from Strépy at Brussels, etc.) 
in which the feature is of a distinctly transitional character. More- 
over, it is well known that, first, the torus is essentially a sexual 
(male) and adult feature ; second, that a reduction of such characters 
is easier than that of those which are more deeply rooted ; and third, 
that in the civilized man of today a continuance of such reduction 
is still perceptible. There is less difference in this respect between the 
Neanderthal and the skulls just’ mentioned than there is between 
these and the mean development of the ridges in the highly cultured 
man—or, for that matter, the ordinary African negro—of the present. 

Heavy, large, and receding lower jaws, such as the La Chapelle 
and some of the Krapina specimens, are among the most